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:0.052 / U:59.712 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site