Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:44:10 +0100 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: [patch] My AMD IDE driver, v2.7 |
| |
J. Dow wrote: > From: "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com> > >>Your proposal sounds 100% ok to me... >> >>For the details of the userspace interface (for both ATA and SCSI), my >>idea was to use standard read(2) and write(2). >> >>Any number of programs can open /dev/ata/hda/control or >>/dev/scsi/sdc/control. write(2) submits requests, read(2) consumes >>command responses, perhaps buffering a bit so that multiple responses >>are not lost if userspace is slow. >> >>Maybe it's a cheesy way to avoid ioctl(2), maybe not... >> > > Jeff, from a security aspect would it perhaps be better to have the > filter always in place and load rule sets through a rigidly controlled > interface?
You are overdesigning by a broad margin. From a security point of view (I mean the paranoid one) the whole raw interface whatever filtered or not should *just not be there*.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |