[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: What's wrong with IDE patch and what proper solution should be
Meelis Roos <> writes:

>PBD> Right now, you can write (for example) an Iomega Jaz utility without
>PBD> any kernel futzing at all. Contrast this with Windows where it seems
>PBD> necessary to always install a new driver.
>What IS the solution?

>* We want to use raw ide & scsi & etc commands. This is a problem.
> Is a general safe filter even possible (such that cd writing, zip dives
> etc continue to work)? I assume this is not possible.
>So the only 'bulletproof' way is to do all hardare access in kernel and not
>provide userspace _any_ methods for doing it directly. This means all zip
>drivers & graphics drivers & so on in the kernel :-(
>_IF_ the hardware can be damaged THEN no userspace application must
>be able to access it directly and to use such devices, a kernel level
>driver must exist t o provide all the access safely.
>Or am I missing something?

No, but you're not emphasizing the ":-(" at the end of the paragraph
above. The idea that to use specific Jaz drive commands I need to
"insmod jaz.o" strikes me as a reversal of one of the boldest triumphs
and biggest differences between Windows and most Unixen.

The fact that we have *SCSI* and *IDE* drivers, and not Seagate,
Iomega, Adaptec etc. drivers is something we should not be
contemplating abandoning.

So, sure, protect the whole or some portion of the sg drivers with
CAP_SYS_RAW, but don't think that its still Unix if you have to
install a device-specific driver for each device that uses a standard


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.024 / U:21.224 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site