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>