From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751959Ab3KJQoz (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Nov 2013 11:44:55 -0500 Received: from b.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.144]:1660 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751531Ab3KJQoy (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Nov 2013 11:44:54 -0500 Message-ID: <527FB804.9090509@nod.at> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:44:52 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shahbaz Youssefi CC: LKML Subject: Re: Partially Privileged Applications References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 10.11.2013 17:24, schrieb Shahbaz Youssefi: > Not sure if I understood you (or you understood me). We don't throw > away anything. Only difference would be instead of generating a trap > to call a function in the kernel, we can just call it and have the > hardware take care of privileges. The "trap way" is the one that > actually seems hacky! A hack proposed to fix the brain-dead processors > of twenty years ago. > > As a bonus you would also have more control over what parts of a > driver actually get run in privileged mode. > > Care to explain why you would call this a step backwards? Maybe I did not understand your idea. But to me it sounds like plain old call gates. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_gate Thanks, //richard