Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Steve VanDevender <> | | Date | Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:45:25 -0700 (PDT) | | Subject | Re: What's wrong with IDE patch and what proper solution should be... |
| |
Mike A. Harris writes: > >Yikes! This way lies madness (at least for SCSI). Removing the > >equivalent of the sg interfaces would reduce Linux to a platform much > >like Windows where every single new SCSI device probably needs to > >provide its own kernel modifications/modules/driver to allow > >device-specific apps to talk to it. > > > >Right now, you can write (for example) an Iomega Jaz utility without > >any kernel futzing at all. Contrast this with Windows where it seems > >necessary to always install a new driver. > > > >Don't go there. > > Part of the kernel's JOB is to arbitrate hardware access. If we > extend your argument, we take out all hardware drivers and > replace them with userland applications and libraries. Then we > end up with MSDOS.
Oh please. The point of a standard protocol is to make it possible to interchange devices from any number of manufacturers on the same interface. That way the kernel need have only a SCSI driver, not a Brand X SCSI driver, a Brand Y SCSI driver, a Brand Z SCSI driver, ad infinitum. We should have standard drivers to support standard protocols, not a huge mess of drivers for all sorts of nonstandard hardware.
So apparently the story so far (as best as I can reconstruct it from Andre's unrelentingly incoherent rants) is that some possible ATA/IDE commands that aren't currently defined in the ATA/IDE specification have been appropriated by some manufacturers to do certain very dangerous things. Apparently these "can and may" (to use Andre's self-contradictory phrasing) void your warranty if issued to the drive, silly as that sounds.
I'm sure the manufacturers would love to blame all those OSes out there for damaging their drives, when it's the manufacturer's own damn fault that they've made drives that can be turned into metal-and-plastic art objects with software commands. What if Intel said that executing undocumented opcodes could void your warranty and destroy your processor? Would we be putting code into the kernel to try to prescan all executables for the self-destruct opcodes? No, the smart people would be fleeing from Intel.
I think we need to find out which manufacturers were stupid enough to make drives that can be made to self-destruct, and stop buying those drives.
Of course, there was the good point that despite all the hullaballoo, no one has actually confirmed that you can destroy drives this way.
- 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/
|  |