lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Does this help explain better?? ATA/IDE Thread
In <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007231218080.8020-100000@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk> James Sutherland (jas88@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, TimO wrote:
>> "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>> >
>> > Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007212041090.15902-100000@master.linux-ide.org>
>> > By author: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
>> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>> > >
>> > > 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.

> NO. They can/will use RAW_IO *IF* this is available to them.

Yes.

> If not, they will have to provide a proper kernel driver for their hardware.

No. They will provide you Windows binary and say "Linux does not allow us to
write such a program so you need Windows to upgrade firmware".

> I know which I prefer...

And I know wich I prefer :-)

>> > 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.

> Yep - WTF is wrong with that?

Right goal, inadequate tools.




-
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:0.141 / U:0.568 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site