* [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing
@ 2008-02-18 21:33 Jean Delvare
2008-02-18 22:46 ` [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port Benjamin Herrenschmidt
` (10 more replies)
0 siblings, 11 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2008-02-18 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
Hi all,
As a follow-up of this discussion on LKML:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/13/390
I would like to propose the following patch to sensors-detect:
Index: prog/detect/sensors-detect
=================================--- prog/detect/sensors-detect (révision 5123)
+++ prog/detect/sensors-detect (copie de travail)
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
#
# sensors-detect - Detect PCI bus and chips
# Copyright (C) 1998 - 2002 Frodo Looijaard <frodol@dds.nl>
-# Copyright (C) 2004 - 2007 Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
+# Copyright (C) 2004 - 2008 Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
#
# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
@@ -2366,12 +2366,13 @@
# [2] -> SUBLEVEL
# [3] -> EXTRAVERSION
#
-use vars qw(@kernel_version);
+use vars qw(@kernel_version $kernel_arch);
sub initialize_kernel_version
{
`uname -r` =~ /(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)(.*)/;
@kernel_version = ($1, $2, $3, $4);
+ $kernel_arch = `uname -m`;
}
sub kernel_version_at_least
@@ -5810,27 +5811,32 @@
}
print "\n";
- print "Some chips are also accessible through the ISA I/O ports. We have to\n".
- "write to arbitrary I/O ports to probe them. This is usually safe though.\n".
- "Yes, you do have ISA I/O ports even if you do not have any ISA slots!\n";
- print "Do you want to scan the ISA I/O ports? (YES/no): ";
- unless (<STDIN> =~ /^\s*n/i) {
- initialize_ioports();
- scan_isa_bus();
- close_ioports();
- }
- print "\n";
+ # Skip "random" I/O port probing on PPC
+ if ($kernel_arch ne 'ppc'
+ && $kernel_arch ne 'ppc64'
+ && $kernel_arch ne 'powerpc') {
+ print "Some chips are also accessible through the ISA I/O ports. We have to\n".
+ "write to arbitrary I/O ports to probe them. This is usually safe though.\n".
+ "Yes, you do have ISA I/O ports even if you do not have any ISA slots!\n";
+ print "Do you want to scan the ISA I/O ports? (YES/no): ";
+ unless (<STDIN> =~ /^\s*n/i) {
+ initialize_ioports();
+ scan_isa_bus();
+ close_ioports();
+ }
+ print "\n";
- print "Some Super I/O chips may also contain sensors. We have to write to\n".
- "standard I/O ports to probe them. This is usually safe.\n";
- print "Do you want to scan for Super I/O sensors? (YES/no): ";
- unless (<STDIN> =~ /^\s*n/i) {
- initialize_ioports();
- scan_superio(0x2e, 0x2f);
- scan_superio(0x4e, 0x4f);
- close_ioports();
+ print "Some Super I/O chips may also contain sensors. We have to write to\n".
+ "standard I/O ports to probe them. This is usually safe.\n";
+ print "Do you want to scan for Super I/O sensors? (YES/no): ";
+ unless (<STDIN> =~ /^\s*n/i) {
+ initialize_ioports();
+ scan_superio(0x2e, 0x2f);
+ scan_superio(0x4e, 0x4f);
+ close_ioports();
+ }
+ print "\n";
}
- print "\n";
print "Some CPUs or memory controllers may also contain embedded sensors.\n";
print "Do you want to scan for them? (YES/no): ";
The idea is to skip "random" I/O port probing on PPC, as it won't find
anything anyway and can cause the kernel to oops.
Christian, can you please test this patch and confirm that it solves
your problem?
Ben, can you please comment on this patch? I'm not familiar with the
PPC architecture at all so I'm not sure if I am looking for the right
strings.
Thanks,
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
@ 2008-02-18 22:46 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-20 19:07 ` Jean Delvare
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2008-02-18 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 22:33 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> The idea is to skip "random" I/O port probing on PPC, as it won't find
> anything anyway and can cause the kernel to oops.
To be more precise, it can cause the chip to access random parts of the
address space that will result in machine checks or worse.
The fact that it oopses instead of SIGBUS is an unfortunate side effect
of those accesses being done by the kernel and not by userland, and not
being marked as recoverable in the exception tables. We could try to fix
-that- though it would still be fairly unreliable as that sort of
machine check tends to be asynchronous, and that wouldn't fix the
problem that on non-x86 arch, it's not uncommon to have completely
different bits of HW around those ports.
So I believe the only thing that should be allowed on powerpc is to
probe "known" areas, that is, places where you know there is something
to be found, typically via the device-tree provided by the platform or
the firmware.
> Christian, can you please test this patch and confirm that it solves
> your problem?
>
> Ben, can you please comment on this patch? I'm not familiar with the
> PPC architecture at all so I'm not sure if I am looking for the right
> strings.
I think ppc and ppc64 are what you get.
Cheers,
Ben.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
2008-02-18 22:46 ` [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port Benjamin Herrenschmidt
@ 2008-02-20 19:07 ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-21 10:02 ` Christian Krafft
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2008-02-20 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:33:17 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As a follow-up of this discussion on LKML:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/13/390
> I would like to propose the following patch to sensors-detect:
> (...)
> The idea is to skip "random" I/O port probing on PPC, as it won't find
> anything anyway and can cause the kernel to oops.
>
> Christian, can you please test this patch and confirm that it solves
> your problem?
My patch wasn't correct, I forgot to chomp the trailing new line
returned by uname -m. I've just committed a working fix to SVN, please
try this instead.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
2008-02-18 22:46 ` [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-20 19:07 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2008-02-21 10:02 ` Christian Krafft
2008-02-21 10:09 ` Jean Delvare
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Christian Krafft @ 2008-02-21 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1340 bytes --]
Hi Jean,
I will try to test your patch today, but only have a little time for this.
If I'm not getting it today, I'll continue next monday.
I'm not very convinced, that this is the right solution, but as a
circumvention, it will take the pressure away.
Cheers,
Christian
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:07:42 +0100
Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:33:17 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As a follow-up of this discussion on LKML:
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/13/390
> > I would like to propose the following patch to sensors-detect:
> > (...)
> > The idea is to skip "random" I/O port probing on PPC, as it won't find
> > anything anyway and can cause the kernel to oops.
> >
> > Christian, can you please test this patch and confirm that it solves
> > your problem?
>
> My patch wasn't correct, I forgot to chomp the trailing new line
> returned by uname -m. I've just committed a working fix to SVN, please
> try this instead.
>
--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
kind regards,
Christian Krafft
IBM Systems & Technology Group,
Linux Kernel Development
IT Specialist
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Herbert Kircher
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
Registriergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-21 10:02 ` Christian Krafft
@ 2008-02-21 10:09 ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-21 22:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2008-02-21 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:02:55 +0100, Christian Krafft wrote:
> I will try to test your patch today, but only have a little time for this.
> If I'm not getting it today, I'll continue next monday.
Note that I managed to test the SVN version of sensors-detect myself
(on ppc64) so I am confident that it works well now.
> I'm not very convinced, that this is the right solution, but as a
> circumvention, it will take the pressure away.
What do you think would be the right solution? I agree that
making /dev/port access safer at the kernel level is still needed. Do
you have anything else in mind?
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-21 10:09 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2008-02-21 22:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-22 7:19 ` Jean Delvare
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2008-02-21 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 11:09 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:02:55 +0100, Christian Krafft wrote:
> > I will try to test your patch today, but only have a little time for this.
> > If I'm not getting it today, I'll continue next monday.
>
> Note that I managed to test the SVN version of sensors-detect myself
> (on ppc64) so I am confident that it works well now.
>
> > I'm not very convinced, that this is the right solution, but as a
> > circumvention, it will take the pressure away.
>
> What do you think would be the right solution? I agree that
> making /dev/port access safer at the kernel level is still needed. Do
> you have anything else in mind?
"safer" how so ?
How can the kernel differenciate between valid and non valid uses of
it ?
Ben.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-21 22:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
@ 2008-02-22 7:19 ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-22 7:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2008-02-22 7:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:49:18 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 11:09 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:02:55 +0100, Christian Krafft wrote:
> > > I will try to test your patch today, but only have a little time for this.
> > > If I'm not getting it today, I'll continue next monday.
> >
> > Note that I managed to test the SVN version of sensors-detect myself
> > (on ppc64) so I am confident that it works well now.
> >
> > > I'm not very convinced, that this is the right solution, but as a
> > > circumvention, it will take the pressure away.
> >
> > What do you think would be the right solution? I agree that
> > making /dev/port access safer at the kernel level is still needed. Do
> > you have anything else in mind?
>
> "safer" how so ?
>
> How can the kernel differenciate between valid and non valid uses of
> it ?
I was referring to the kernel patch Christian submitted earlier this
week which prevents oopses or machine checks when older versions of
sensors-detect access /dev/port in unexpected ways. My update to
sensors-detect was meant as a complement of his patch, not a
replacement.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-22 7:19 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2008-02-22 7:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-22 7:44 ` Jean Delvare
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2008-02-22 7:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 08:19 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
>
> I was referring to the kernel patch Christian submitted earlier this
> week which prevents oopses or machine checks when older versions of
> sensors-detect access /dev/port in unexpected ways. My update to
> sensors-detect was meant as a complement of his patch, not a
> replacement.
But his patch can't recognize a potentially valid use of /proc/port
right ?
Christian, can you re-send me that patch ?
Ben.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-22 7:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
@ 2008-02-22 7:44 ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-22 10:18 ` Christian Krafft
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2008-02-22 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:21:23 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 08:19 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> >
> > I was referring to the kernel patch Christian submitted earlier this
> > week which prevents oopses or machine checks when older versions of
> > sensors-detect access /dev/port in unexpected ways. My update to
> > sensors-detect was meant as a complement of his patch, not a
> > replacement.
>
> But his patch can't recognize a potentially valid use of /proc/port
> right ?
I don't know much about PPC so I can't comment on the implementation.
All I'm saying is that, if it is possible at all, I believe that
preventing invalid accesses from oopsing the machine is a good idea.
> Christian, can you re-send me that patch ?
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-22 7:44 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2008-02-22 10:18 ` Christian Krafft
2008-02-22 21:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-22 22:22 ` [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O Benjamin Herrenschmidt
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Christian Krafft @ 2008-02-22 10:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2048 bytes --]
Hi Ben,
regarding your problem with poking into PCI ranges:
As arnd mentioned, we could check, wether there is a mapping for that address
and if so, allow the access. That could be done in check_legacy_ioport,
although the name looks a bit misleading.
What do you think ?
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:21:23 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> Christian, can you re-send me that patch ?
>
> Ben.
Sure, patch was as trivial as this:
sensors_detect crashes kernel on PowerPC, as it pokes directly to memory.
This patch adds a check_legacy_ioports to read_port and write_port.
It will now return ENXIO, instead of oopsing.
Signed-off-by: Christian Krafft <krafft@de.ibm.com>
Index: linux.git/drivers/char/mem.c
===================================================================
--- linux.git.orig/drivers/char/mem.c
+++ linux.git/drivers/char/mem.c
@@ -566,8 +566,13 @@ static ssize_t read_port(struct file * f
char __user *tmp = buf;
if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, buf, count))
- return -EFAULT;
+ return -EFAULT;
+
while (count-- > 0 && i < 65536) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
+ if (check_legacy_ioport(i))
+ return -ENXIO;
+#endif
if (__put_user(inb(i),tmp) < 0)
return -EFAULT;
i++;
@@ -585,6 +590,7 @@ static ssize_t write_port(struct file *
if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ,buf,count))
return -EFAULT;
+
while (count-- > 0 && i < 65536) {
char c;
if (__get_user(c, tmp)) {
@@ -592,6 +598,10 @@ static ssize_t write_port(struct file *
break;
return -EFAULT;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
+ if (check_legacy_ioport(i))
+ return -ENXIO;
+#endif
outb(c,i);
i++;
tmp++;
--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
kind regards,
Christian Krafft
IBM Systems & Technology Group,
Linux Kernel Development
IT Specialist
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Herbert Kircher
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
Registriergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-22 10:18 ` Christian Krafft
@ 2008-02-22 21:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-22 22:22 ` [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O Benjamin Herrenschmidt
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2008-02-22 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 08:44 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:21:23 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 08:19 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > >
> > > I was referring to the kernel patch Christian submitted earlier this
> > > week which prevents oopses or machine checks when older versions of
> > > sensors-detect access /dev/port in unexpected ways. My update to
> > > sensors-detect was meant as a complement of his patch, not a
> > > replacement.
> >
> > But his patch can't recognize a potentially valid use of /proc/port
> > right ?
>
> I don't know much about PPC so I can't comment on the implementation.
> All I'm saying is that, if it is possible at all, I believe that
> preventing invalid accesses from oopsing the machine is a good idea.
Preventing root from doing something stupid is not worth bothering.
I don't see how you can effectively prevent invalid accesses to
IO ports without also blocking potentially valid ones in that case,
unless the kernel happens to know exactly what is where (which isn't
necessarily the case as far as such IOs are concerned) and even
then, who can the kernel differenciate ?
For example, on some machines, I have seen firmwares putting PCI IO BARs
of device where usually legacy stuff is on x86. So while accesses to
this area via /proc would be legit by something that knows about that
device, something like sensors-detect would definitely do the wrong
thing by assuming those ports are hooked up to legacy devices.
Ben.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-22 21:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
@ 2008-02-22 22:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2008-02-22 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 11:18 +0100, Christian Krafft wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> regarding your problem with poking into PCI ranges:
> As arnd mentioned, we could check, wether there is a mapping for that address
> and if so, allow the access. That could be done in check_legacy_ioport,
> although the name looks a bit misleading.
> What do you think ?
It would be pretty gross to end up checking the whole device-tree
for things...
Maybe we could check that there's something in the resource tree though,
under ioport_resources, that matches the requested port.
But again, its a matter of preventing root from being stupid, which I'm
not sure is that worth pursuing...
Ben.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-02-22 22:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-02-18 21:33 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port probing Jean Delvare
2008-02-18 22:46 ` [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O port Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-20 19:07 ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-21 10:02 ` Christian Krafft
2008-02-21 10:09 ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-21 22:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-22 7:19 ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-22 7:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-22 7:44 ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-22 10:18 ` Christian Krafft
2008-02-22 21:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-22 22:22 ` [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Skip "random" I/O Benjamin Herrenschmidt
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.