Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:55:17 -0500 (CDT) | From | Andrew McNabb <> | Subject | Re: disk-destroyer.c |
| |
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Myrddin Emrys wrote:
> It's cement for one hole that you know exists... what about a dozen others > you don't? There's probably two dozen documented other places where you can > fry some subsystem or another. Protecting the system against a malicious > root is an exercise in futility. No matter what you do, how you guard the > system, root can bypass it. This is by design, as you well know. That is how > Linux (and most *nix) works.
Let me try to understand what you're saying... It is established that a system's interface allows programs to physically destroy a disk drive, without providing any benefit whatsoever. However, since it's possible to fry other hardware, too, why bother with this problem???
The fact of the matter is, that it is wrong for a program to destroy hardware. It is the kernel's job to ensure that it can't. It is pure laziness to ignore the issue.
My feeling is that we should try to avoid all possible ways of accidentally or maliciously breaking parts. We can start out by fixing the IDE subsystem, and then go on to others. Just because other stuff is broken, too, doesn't mean that we should give up.
---------------------------------------------- Andrew McNabb Argus Systems Group amcnabb@argus-systems.com ----------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |