lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Fwd: ioperm is preserved across fork and execve, but iopl is not
On 05/11/2015 01:49 PM, Alex Henrie wrote:
>
> The ioperm and iopl calls are both used to grant a process permission
> to access I/O devices directly. iopl(3) is equivalent to ioperm(0,
> 0xFFFF, 1). However, permissions granted through ioperm are preserved
> across fork and execve, and permissions granted through iopl are not.
> This makes no sense: The two calls do the same thing, so there is no
> security benefit to dropping one on fork or execve but not the other.
>

They don't, in fact. An iopl(3) process is allowed to disable
interrupts in user space, which an ioperm() process is not.

This is a HUGE deal. This really makes me wonder if iopl(3) should be
allowed at all, or if we should just intercept it and treat it as ioperm().

-hpa




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-11 23:21    [W:0.027 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site