On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 07:17:12PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote: > > I think we need a flag in the device structure to mark the type of the > > device more properly than the device ops does. In particular, I am worried > > about someone sending an io perm modify IPC to a non-io perm device port, it > > doesn't look to me as if I coded any guard against this into it. > > That RPC goes to the task. You are talking about its argument. > convert_io_perm_to_port needs to check that it's really an io_perm port.
Yup, sorry. I shouldn't do this stuff when I am tired. > As it happens, I don't think that any other device uses no_device_ops (I > don't recall what it was there for in the first place). So you could use > ops==&no_device_ops as the test. Or to avoid the presumption you could > just make your own all-zeros io_perm_device_ops so that the address would > be unique. Yeah, I was thinking of that. In fact, the reason I became aware of that is that I wanted to use another pseudo device with no ops for the proxy memory objects (but for those I need a close function, so I made my own device ops structure). I know that this is lame, as one reason against a new kernel object type for iopb was that it is machine-specific, and I don't have this argument here. > It seems to me we might actually want a device_ops anyway, to have close. > Then io_perm.c could use the oskit interfaces for the global io bitmap, > to disallow an io_perm range that overlaps with a kernel driver. Hu, never heard about that. Sounds like a good idea. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/ _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
