From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751474AbWDBWjp (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:39:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751479AbWDBWjp (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:39:45 -0400 Received: from morbo.e-centre.net ([66.154.82.3]:26357 "EHLO cubert.e-centre.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751474AbWDBWjo (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:39:44 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1144017583-1444-39-0 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.3.1.19:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Who wants to test cracklinux?? Subject: Re: Who wants to test cracklinux?? From: Arjan van de Ven To: Ben Ford Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <44305193.5080408@kalifornia.com> References: <20060328221223.80753cab.letterdrop@gmx.de> <20060328224929.GC5760@elf.ucw.cz> <44305193.5080408@kalifornia.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:39:41 +0200 Message-Id: <1144017581.3066.34.camel@testmachine> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=4.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.10393 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 15:34 -0700, Ben Ford wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > >> I've written a small kernel module & shared object for kernel 2.6 to > >> enable the following for normal users: > >> > >> - inb()/outb()... via a wrapper function > > ioperm() does that already, no? You mean, you enable it for non-root, > > too? That's security hole. > > My OS development classes have a lab of machines that run entirely as > root just for these reasons. I think it's valid to allow these > operations as non-root in certain situations. It is better than > running *everything* as root, no? is there any difference? I mean... if you can outb you for all intents and purposes are root anyway ;) (like you can overwrite any memory in the system etc etc)