Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys_ioperm

H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-14T20:40:23Z

On 07/14/2011 01:38 PM, Mike Waychison wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't it be more useful for this to be a sysctl? In particular, like
>> many similar things it probably should be a lockable sysctl (three
>> states: enabled, disabled, and locked-disabled).
>>
>> Making it a compile-time option I'm very skeptical to.
>
> Are there existing examples of this already in the tree?
>

I think so, but I don't know off the top of my head.

-hpa