Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 00:02:59 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: rdmsr from userspace Message-ID: <48309983.3070900@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <48307658.2080502@FreeBSD.org> References: <482E93C0.4070802@icyb.net.ua> <482EFBA0.30107@FreeBSD.org> <482F1191.70709@icyb.net.ua> <482F1529.5080409@FreeBSD.org> <20080517175312.GM18958@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <48304F9D.9030406@FreeBSD.org> <20080518181549.GZ18958@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <48307658.2080502@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 18/05/2008 21:32 Rui Paulo said the following: > > Yes, but I still don't like having everything mixed up in one driver. At > the very least, I would like us to have two drivers. One for the > microcode update and the other driver for the rest. > > I would like to see a microcode update utility (driver + something to > parse Intel's file aka devcpu-data) in the base system, but not "the > rest", though. Well, I am not sure what is a basis for such a requirement. As I pointed out before we already have /dev/pci and /dev/io and those are not going to go away, because there are quite reasonable applications that require those devices (and wide-spread too). And I think that sufficiently structured (via ioctl interface) access to CPU is also needed for some quite useful (and reasonable) userland applications. I can understand efforts to prevent foot-shooting, but I can not understand an approach of limiting abilities of a (sufficiently) privileged user. After all, he/she can rebuild a kernel and put all they need into it. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48309983.3070900>