similar to: Has the "IOPL not enabled" not been solved yet

Hi, on a dual boot laptop I have winXP and Debian sid/squeeze x86_64 installed. Wine is version 1.0.1. WinXP partition is NTFS and mounted read-only under Debian. I have used winecfg to attach the NTFS partition to my drive E: and use winefile to navigate to the microsoft office 11 binaries on E:. Both winword.exe and excel.exe reports the famous IOPL not enabled message. I have not installed any

I get "IOPL not enabled" error when loading WINWORD.EXE. I have XP installed on a NTFS partition, and "office pro 2003" version. Anybody ran on this problem?? jose -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/attachments/20060315/86ceb3e2/attachment.htm

With this patch, x86 and x86-64 share ioport.c, fixing LTP iopl and ioperm testcase failures (on both). We found an iopl testcase failing even on x86 xenlinux. Now x86-64 xenlinux should have the same results regarding the LTP testcases (as far as we tested). Signed-off-by: Li B Xin <li.b.xin@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com> Jun --- Intel Open Source

Hi Josh, On Tue, Oct 22, 2013, at 3:35, Josh Triplett wrote: > On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the > userspsace I/O syscalls, iopl and ioperm. Add a new config option, > CONFIG_X86_IOPORT, to support configuring them out of the kernel > entirely. Since these syscalls only exist to support rare legacy > userspace programs, X86_IOPORT does not depend

Hi Josh, On Tue, Oct 22, 2013, at 3:35, Josh Triplett wrote: > On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the > userspsace I/O syscalls, iopl and ioperm. Add a new config option, > CONFIG_X86_IOPORT, to support configuring them out of the kernel > entirely. Since these syscalls only exist to support rare legacy > userspace programs, X86_IOPORT does not depend

On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:33:01 -0800 Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett.org> wrote: > On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the > userspsace IO syscalls, iopl and ioperm. Add a new config option, > CONFIG_X86_IOPORT, to support configuring them out of the kernel > entirely. Most current systems do not run programs using these > syscalls, so X86_IOPORT

On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:33:01 -0800 Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett.org> wrote: > On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the > userspsace IO syscalls, iopl and ioperm. Add a new config option, > CONFIG_X86_IOPORT, to support configuring them out of the kernel > entirely. Most current systems do not run programs using these > syscalls, so X86_IOPORT

It doesn't look like iopl() is working. I'm taking an exception on every IO instruction. inl(0xde04) = 00000100 eip:765e eax:0100 ebx:0000 ecx:0320 edx:de04 esi:03f5 edi:0087 ebp:0000 esp:6b62 cs:c000 ss:c000 es:0000 ds:c000 fs:0000 gs:0000 eflags:00000246 exception: code at 0x000c7661: 66 ef 5a 59 66 58 9d c3 53 bb 02 00 e8 5e ff 5b c3 53 bb 05 00 e8 55 ff 5b c3 53

On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the userspsace IO syscalls, iopl and ioperm. Add a new config option, CONFIG_X86_IOPORT, to support configuring them out of the kernel entirely. Most current systems do not run programs using these syscalls, so X86_IOPORT does not depend on EXPERT, though it does still default to y. In addition to saving a significant amount of

On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the userspsace IO syscalls, iopl and ioperm. Add a new config option, CONFIG_X86_IOPORT, to support configuring them out of the kernel entirely. Most current systems do not run programs using these syscalls, so X86_IOPORT does not depend on EXPERT, though it does still default to y. In addition to saving a significant amount of

> > This isn't unreasonable but there are drivers with userspace helpers that > > use iopl/ioperm type functionality where you should be doing a SELECT of > > X86_IOPORT. The one that comes to mind is the uvesa driver. From a quick > > scan it may these days be the only mainstream one that needs the select > > adding. > > Should kernel drivers really

> > This isn't unreasonable but there are drivers with userspace helpers that > > use iopl/ioperm type functionality where you should be doing a SELECT of > > X86_IOPORT. The one that comes to mind is the uvesa driver. From a quick > > scan it may these days be the only mainstream one that needs the select > > adding. > > Should kernel drivers really

I found a clever way to make the extra IOPL switching invisible to non-paravirt compiles - since kernel_rpl is statically defined to be zero there, and only non-zero rpl kernel have a problem restoring IOPL, as popf does not restore IOPL flags unless run at CPL-0. Subject: IOPL handling for paravirt guests Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> diff -r 8110943fd7ad

I found a clever way to make the extra IOPL switching invisible to non-paravirt compiles - since kernel_rpl is statically defined to be zero there, and only non-zero rpl kernel have a problem restoring IOPL, as popf does not restore IOPL flags unless run at CPL-0. Subject: IOPL handling for paravirt guests Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> diff -r 8110943fd7ad

This patch series makes it possible to compile out the userspace IO system calls, iopl and ioperm. The first patch does some 32/64 unification in copy_thread to make subsequent changes easier. The second patch simplifies the complex calculation of the TSS segment limit, which also makes it easier to change in the last patch. Patches 3-9 introduce helpers to make it easier to compile out IO.

This patch series makes it possible to compile out the userspace IO system calls, iopl and ioperm. The first patch does some 32/64 unification in copy_thread to make subsequent changes easier. The second patch simplifies the complex calculation of the TSS segment limit, which also makes it easier to change in the last patch. Patches 3-9 introduce helpers to make it easier to compile out IO.

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 12:10:49PM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:33:01 -0800 > Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett.org> wrote: > > > On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the > > userspsace IO syscalls, iopl and ioperm. Add a new config option, > > CONFIG_X86_IOPORT, to support configuring them out of the kernel

On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the userspsace I/O syscalls, iopl and ioperm. Add a new config option, CONFIG_X86_IOPORT, to support configuring them out of the kernel entirely. Since these syscalls only exist to support rare legacy userspace programs, X86_IOPORT does not depend on EXPERT, though it does still default to y. In addition to saving a significant

On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the userspsace I/O syscalls, iopl and ioperm. Add a new config option, CONFIG_X86_IOPORT, to support configuring them out of the kernel entirely. Most current systems do not run programs using these syscalls, so X86_IOPORT does not depend on EXPERT, though it does still default to y. In addition to saving a significant amount of

I/O from userspace is used to implement usermode virtio driver(s). This has been done independently by Intel, Brocade/Vyatta, and 6Wind. Sorry, it has to stay. On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett.org> wrote: > On the vast majority of modern systems, no processes will use the > userspsace I/O syscalls, iopl and ioperm. Add a new config option, >