lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 24 Jul 2000 13:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
FromAndre Hedrick <>
SubjectPossible Solution for ATA Mess...

I have spoken with anther member and the idea to be draft will statisfy
Linux needs.

Because there is no lock to enable/disable vender unique commands and no
language that protects against its use.

The 1ST proposal that I will put forward will state something like this:

All devices shall reject all vender-specific commands when the
vender-unique enable is not set. In addition enabling any vender-specific
commands shall not be done by anyone but the vender of the product.

The 2ND proposal that I will put forward will state something like this:

The HOST portion of the reporting-logs will be defined as a a record to
record the time and date of these vender-unique enable calls. This will
be a write only and shall not earasable by any means. In addition the
vender shall provide a signature the authenticates the approved access,
and all other accesses should not provide a signature.

With these two in place the filter can ignored for the uses put before
eariler.

It has taken a lot of wacking over my think skull but I have agreed that
this was view in a light that was protective. I was partly correct in the
reading of the SPEC, but it left HOLEs that resulted in actions pushed
forward.

Because the word "shall" == must always do regardless.

You can not fault me for trying to follow the standard.
You can fault me fore being an ARSE, and a GOOD on at that.....

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    [from the cache]
©2003-2010