From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May  5  7:25:17 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from lor.watermarkgroup.com (lor.watermarkgroup.com [207.202.73.33])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D326B14E00
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed,  5 May 1999 07:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from luoqi@watermarkgroup.com)
Received: (from luoqi@localhost)
	by lor.watermarkgroup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09357;
	Wed, 5 May 1999 10:23:50 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from luoqi)
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:23:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>
Message-Id: <199905051423.KAA09357@lor.watermarkgroup.com>
To: dfr@nlsystems.com, fygrave@tigerteam.net
Subject: Re: io ports reading/writing
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech@openbsd.org
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> ~ 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.
> 
We have this level of io permission control, through the i386_g/set_ioperm
syscalls (man 2 i386_get_ioperm). You will need to enable kernel option VM86
to use them.

-lq


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message