Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 07:43:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Feldman <green@unixhelp.org> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: CyberPsychotic <fygrave@tigerteam.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech@openbsd.org Subject: Re: io ports reading/writing Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905050742530.43394-100000@janus.syracuse.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905051016150.411-100000@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Doug Rabson wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 1999, CyberPsychotic wrote:
>
> > ~
> > ~ The access control for io ports is controlled by the file-system
> > ~ permissions on /dev/io. In a standard setup, only root can access this
> > ~ device.
> > ~
> >
> > yes. But I was refering to linux scheme, where you can set the port-range,
> > so the code wouldn't make any unintentional damage. (like if you're working
> > with cmos you could only permit 0x70/0x71 ports, so even if code goes nuts,
> > your disks will be safe). This is basically programmer's problem of course,
> > but the feature is very handy.
>
> I don't quite understand the i386 architecture at this level but I seem to
> remember that this support would require significant changes in the way we
> handle processes and there might have been some performance implications.
> I don't think its a big problem in practice.
What about i386_[gs]et_ioperm()?
>
> --
> Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com
> Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037
>
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>
Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
green@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \ _ \ |) |
http://www.freebsd.org _ |___)___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9905050742530.43394-100000>