[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest) (was: Rationale for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK?)
Matthias Andree <> wrote:

> S2 Jörg is concerned about the SCSI command filter being too
> restrictive. I'm not sure if it still applies to 2.6.16-rc and what the
> exact commands in question were. I'll let Jörg complete this list.

I am tired today and I need to do other work, so let me parly reply:

Iff there is a user space infrastructure for fine grained privileges,
there is absolutely no problem with a planned and well known restriction.

On Solaris, you (currently) use a profile enabled shell (pfsh, pfksh or pfcsh)
that calls getexecuser() in order to find whether there is a specific treatment
needed. If this specific treatment is needed, then the shell calls
execve(/usr/bin/pfexec cmd <args>)
else it calls execve(cmd <args>)

I did recently voted to require all shells to be profile enabled by default.

With the future plans for extending fine grained privs on Solaris, sending
SCSI commands will become more than one priv.

I proposed to have a low priv right to send commands like inquiry and test unit
ready. These commands may e.g. be send without interfering a concurrent CD/DVD
write operation.

The next priv could be the permission for sending simple SCSI commands that
allow reading from the device.

The next priv could be the permission for sending simple SCSI Commands that
allow writing.

The final priv would allow even vendor specific commands: this is what cdrecord


-- (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin (uni) (work) Blog:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-23 23:07    [W:0.446 / U:3.028 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site