Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:28:55 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Direct access to hardware |
| |
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Alan Cox wrote: ? > > If the system is secure, then adding sanity checking to the ATA code > > makes no difference: nobody gets to do anything improper anyway. > > You aren't reading the capability stuff very carefully.
I _am_.
I agree with the CAP_SYS_RAWIO thing. Obviously. I think the current code checks CAP_SYS_ADMIN, which is almost certainly just due to the fact that that is what most of the old "super_user()" tests were changed into.
But you haven't followed the discussion: I disagree about the kernel trying to parse the damn commands, because I don't think that the kernel can (or should) know about all vendor-specific commands and whether they are "evil" or not.
If somebody sends me a patch to change CAP_SYS_ADMIN into CAP_SYS_RAWIO, I'll apply it in a jiffy.
Linus
- 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/
| |