Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:46:52 -0700 (PDT) | From | Andre Hedrick <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |