From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E41DDF07
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:06:34 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/2] powerpc: avoid userspace poking to legacy ioports
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080218215842.66bb004f@hyperion.delvare>
References: <20080213182800.5c6940a8@de.ibm.com>
	<20080213183506.7f3e3145@de.ibm.com> <1202935374.7296.44.camel@pasglop>
	<20080218211519.2b159ade@hyperion.delvare>
	<1203367323.6740.21.camel@pasglop>
	<20080218215842.66bb004f@hyperion.delvare>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:05:16 +1100
Message-Id: <1203368716.6740.24.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: parabelboi@bopserverein.de, Christian Krafft <krafft@de.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>


> 
> * Super-I/O chips at 0x2e/0x2f and 0x4e/0x4f.
> 
> * Legacy PC hardware monitoring chips at 0x290-0x297.
> 
> * IPMI interface at 0x0ca3 and 0x0cab (read-only).
> 
> Please tell me which ones should be skipped on PowerPC.

Skip the whole thing. I consider that on a powerpc linux port, the
platform is responsible for telling drivers where things are (via the
device tree generally)
 
> Christian, can you tell me which of these probes caused trouble for you?
> 
> > > And how is userland code poking at random ports different from kernel
> > > code poking at random ports? We could move sensors-detect inside the
> > > kernel (and I have some plan to do that) but I fail to see how this
> > > would solve this particular problem.
> > 
> > It wouldn't, but at least I could NAK it or make it CONFIG_X86 :-)
> 
> The same could be done for user-space (or at the /dev/port level.)

Well, there are -other- legit usages of /dev/port...

Ben.