On 04/23/09 11:26, Gary Winiger wrote: >>>> My recollection from 2005/232 was there was a discussion >>>> about non-standard install places. How was that resolved? >>>> >>>> I wasn't part of that discussion back then. Not sure what that would be >>>> about. >>>> >>>> >>> As the project is largely relying on that case with was about >>> an unbundled integration, it seems to me appropriate for the >>> project team to review the basis of this case and ensure that >>> the issues that were raised there are resolved now. >>> Saying something is not shipped with the WOS, but as an unbundled >>> with a limited set of users leads to different packaging and >>> installation that something shipping with the WOS. Since a >>> patch binding has been requested, the WOS in this case is >>> S10. >>> >>> >> Yes good point. There is another discussion going on about this whole >> packaging issue. It is definitely being scrutinized as the requesters >> for this tool all have their own requirements and such. >> > > If this is still being discussed, isn't the case premature? > Shouldn't this case be in waiting need spec until all relevant > peripheral discussions have completed? > > no.. packaging issues are separate and there are many ways to do this. As long as it is OK to for pcitool to be released in some sort of package or bundled somehow etc.. then we are set.
Unless there are objections for this userland tool to be bundled somehow, I don't see how this can be an issue. >>>>> Risks and Assumptions: >>>>> PCITool allows privileged users to remap interrupt-CPU bindings >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What's a "privileged user"? What Rights Profile will pcitool >>>> be in? Again my recollection from 2005/232 is that "all" >>>> privileges is required. Is that still the case? Is there >>>> also some specific userID that's necessary >>>> >>>> Same rights nothing has changed, except some documentation. >>>> >>>> >>> Again there was a discussion of privileges that didn't >>> seem to converge. From the man page, I could read that >>> the only privilege needed is sys_res_config. 2005/233 >>> seemed to imply privs=all. This case materials doesn't >>> define how, now that pcitool will be provided as part of >>> the WOS, the sys_res_config privilege is granted to >>> pcitool. Specifically, what Rights Profile and is sys_res_config >>> the only privilege granted? Are there any uid requirements? >>> >>> >> The privileges really refer to the ioctls which this package has nothing >> to do with. We are only dealing with the userland binary. >> > > Ok, the privileges refer to the ioctls. I presume the userland > binary calls the ioctls. Is the only privilege the userland > binary requires sys_res_config? How does the userland binary > gain this or any other privileges? > I do not think this is relevant. That's like asking how does "cat" or "rm" gain this or any other privileges to read a file. A user can write a perl script to do the same thing. > Gary.. >
