Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/

• Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• In reply to: Andi Kleen: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• Next in thread: Chris Evans: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• Next in thread: Tigran Aivazian: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• Reply: Chris Evans: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > > Clearly? How do MTRR changes relate to rawio ?
> >
> > RAWIO is about hardware level access not Stephens O_DIRECT stuff
>
> So why is /proc/kcore access SYS_RAWIO then ?

I kind of overloaded CAP_SYS_RAWIO to restrict access to bits
of arbitrary memory. Maybe this one should require CAP_PTRACE
and CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE instead.

> And why is nvram access not SYS_RAWIO ?

What level of interface does it offer? If it's a simple read/
write, then it's no more RAWIO than /dev/hda.

Once upon a time I had a big patch which caught a lot of these
things (funny devices, device setup ioctl()s, etc) but nobody
seemed interested in it. Really, I think that set of available
capabilities needs refactoring.

Matthew.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Tigran Aivazian: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• In reply to: Andi Kleen: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• Next in thread: Chris Evans: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• Next in thread: Tigran Aivazian: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• Reply: Chris Evans: "Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 07:38:47 EDT