| | |
Hardware interactions on Linux
Please support our C advertiser: Programming Forums - DaniWeb Sister Site
Thread Solved |
>>Does anyone here have any tips on using inb and outb for interacting with hardware on a Linux system?
Yes -- you can not use them because the os won't let you access the ports directly.
>>Infact, inb(0x61) gives me a segfault.
Yup
Yes -- you can not use them because the os won't let you access the ports directly.
>>Infact, inb(0x61) gives me a segfault.
Yup
Last edited by Ancient Dragon; Mar 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm.
Don't PM me with questions -- you might get a nasty PM in response. If you have a question then post it in one of the forums.
•
•
•
•
>>Does anyone here have any tips on using inb and outb for interacting with hardware on a Linux system?
Yes -- you can not use them because the os won't let you access the ports directly.
>>Infact, inb(0x61) gives me a segfault.
Yup
I know, that's why I said modified for windows. As in replacing inb and outb with inportb and outportb.
•
•
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 2
I realize that this thread is old, but it is still useful to correct an erroneous assertion about inb(), outb(), etc., especially given that Google drops people in here when looking for an answer to why these functions segfault, even when all the advice featured elsewhere is followed.
The truth is that these functions do in fact work, even under the most recent versions of the kernel (as of 8/11/09). However, they will not work from a user mode program unless the program is run as root (sudo...). It is also true that they will segfault if iopl(3) is not used. iopl(2) is not good enough. It is also true that the method of using ioperm() fails, apparently no matter how it is used. This may have worked in older kernels, but it now always gives a segfault. The only means of using these function seems to be calling iopl(3) first. (Ubuntu Interpid, 2.6.28-15-generic, x86_64 GNU/Linux)
The truth is that these functions do in fact work, even under the most recent versions of the kernel (as of 8/11/09). However, they will not work from a user mode program unless the program is run as root (sudo...). It is also true that they will segfault if iopl(3) is not used. iopl(2) is not good enough. It is also true that the method of using ioperm() fails, apparently no matter how it is used. This may have worked in older kernels, but it now always gives a segfault. The only means of using these function seems to be calling iopl(3) first. (Ubuntu Interpid, 2.6.28-15-generic, x86_64 GNU/Linux)
![]() |
Other Threads in the C Forum
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
#include * append array arrays asterisks bash binarysearch calculate changingto char character cm copyimagefile creafecopyofanytypeoffileinc createprocess() database directory dynamic execv feet fgets file floatingpointvalidation fork forloop framework function getlogicaldrivestrin givemetehcodez global grade gtkwinlinux hacking histogram ide include incrementoperators input intmain() iso kernel keyboard kilometer km license linked linkedlist linux list lists locate looping loopinsideloop. lowest matrix meter microsoft mqqueue number oddnumber odf opensource openwebfoundation overwrite owf pdf performance pointer posix probleminc process program programming radix recursion recv recvblocked research reversing scripting segmentationfault sequential single socket socketprogramming standard strchr string systemcall testing threads turboc unix urboc user variable wab whythiscodecausesegmentationfault windowsapi






