[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Does this help explain better?? ATA/IDE Thread
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> Followup to: <>
> By author: Andre Hedrick <>
> In newsgroup:
> >
> > Everyone
> >
> > I am talking about attempting to invoke unknown vender specific commands
> > They do comply with the SPEC but are not part of the SPEC.
> > Since I do not have the priviledge of knowing these facts, but know they
> > exist. You can not allow a rouge driver attempt to invoke these commands.
> >
> A rogue driver can always do this by writing straight to the
> interface. I think a more serious issue is: what about a *buggy*
> drivers? However, what I am a bit unclear of is the following: will
> this patch prevent me from writing a driver which issues legitimate
> vendor-specific commands to control vendor-specific aspects of a
> particular piece of hardware? If so, that would be a very bad thing.
> However, if this patch is there to prevent buggy programs from issuing
> known-to-be-damaging commands by accient, then that is a Good
> Thing[TM].

Vendor-specific commands would not be allowed through the kernel. A
specific program for a specific vendor would have to use RAW_IO; ie
for firmware upgrades.

> I personally would have to agree with the people that say this isn't a
> security issue, but I *do* believe that protecting buggy programs (we
> never have any of those, right?) from causing permanent damage to the
> hardware is a very useful thing.

This is EXACTLY what Andre is trying to accomplish.

> -hpa
> --
> <> at work, <> in private!
> "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."

--- Tim

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.078 / U:2.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site