On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 08:39:45PM +0100, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 02:18:12PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 11:54:55AM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > > int
> > > i386_iopl(l, args, retval)
> > > {
> > > [...]
> > > 	if (securelevel > 1)
> > 
> > Securelevel > 1?  That test should be securelevel >= 1.  It's a serious
> > bug if it's not.
> 
> Without it, the "aperture" driver won't be useful at securelevel 1 (at
> least if X need access to I/O space, which they probably do). Since the
> aperture driver exists for a long time, I would call it a known feature.

We don't ship the aperture driver -- for good reason, it exists primarily
to give users a false sense of security -- so it's certainly not "a known
feature" _of NetBSD_.