lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: What's wrong with IDE patch and what proper solution should be...

Steve,

Mind you all I asked was to filter and authenticate that commands pushed
through one interface to have checks.

In exchange, I have returned a new more robust inteface that is complete
in all aspects and will allow you to completely destroy the hardware
faster and more efficently. I do not want to waste any of your time if
you want to do such dangerous and silly things. HERE IS THE CATCH.....

You will be required to set a compile option to enable this interface.
This will never be default enabled option. What is wrong with protecting
the default and fully enabling a new interface with the one restiction
that you assume copablity if the effects if you enable and/or use.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Steve VanDevender wrote:

> Of course, there was the good point that despite all the hullaballoo, no
> one has actually confirmed that you can destroy drives this way.

I have a dead drive on my desk because I needed to verify it myself that
it could be done. I would be very happy to send this to Linus to show
him that I verified this by intentionally using a multi-nested loop to
increase the potential of hitting anything that could be damaging.

Would like me to post exactly how to do this because I will not give it in
private. Upon show a method how to do this, I will basically burn all the
bridges to the hardware industry and never get an answer or help to
improve linux ever again. Even when I step down from maintaining the
sub-system, Linux will be permantly damage forever. Is this what you
truly want?

Many of you do not like me because I give it to you as straight as I can.
This does not bother me. What bothers me is the additude that is okay to
give a very powerful tool that is not checked to a new user that has the
potential to damaging their system. Much less a business that gives Linux
an evaluation review to replace the competition with Linux.

I ask for one kernel policy for the default and return a new and improved
with out a policy.

I just can not understand the nature of the CS world, sorry.

At this point in time I would ask for discussion to be terminated.
This is a now or never (beable to defend the decision later and win) point.
Trust that I am allowing everyone of you that disargee to make the
documented case to protect me for anytime in the future should this ever
become an issue that becomes actionable.

Respectfully,

Andre Hedrick
The Linux ATA/IDE guy


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.091 / U:0.924 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site