Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:56:09 +0100
From: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
       crash-utility@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Turn CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM in sysctl dev.mem.restricted
Message-ID: <20081116165609.4f17fc10@kopernikus.site>
In-Reply-To: <20081116073948.02aea58c@infradead.org>
References: <1226846868-9595-1-git-send-email-bwalle@suse.de>
	<20081116073948.02aea58c@infradead.org>
Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1099
Lines: 30

* Arjan van de Ven [2008-11-16 07:39]:
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:47:45 +0100
> Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> > While the original submission of CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM mentions that
> > the option has been in RHEL and Fedora for 4 years without problems,
> > that's only a half of the story. The truth is that at least RHEL
> > has /dev/crash exactly to circumvent that /dev/mem restriction. Don't
> > tell me that this is better than having that sysctl entry. ;-)
> 
> I assume /dev/crash is read only

I don't know. But if that matters, why can't we make /dev/mem
write-only for certain areas and read-only for the rest ...?

> You either want this at compile time or you don't want it at all.

Why? You don't write something about my arguments (as Alan does, even
though I disagree), you only write that you "nak" it.


Regards,
Bernhard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/