> At his point I do not give a damn about data, fs, backups......
> This is pure hardware destruction that anyone can do.
>
> Why is this such a big fight?
>
> Does everybody want the kernel to be able to screw itself just by
> blinking?
>
> Andre Hedrick
> The Linux ATA/IDE guy
Andre,
I am still not sure I understand all the technical issues of it (because I will
not pretend to know the ATA spec or the SCSI spec, I just don't care to know
that much at THIS point in time)... but I have a question for you. It seems
everyone is thinking of this as a security issue, honestly I think they are
wrong, so here is the question:
Is this a STABILITY or SECURITY issue?
Am I correct in thinking it is the first? I agree with everyone else, as a
security measure, it is pretty poor, but I can see it greatly as a stability
issue. From the sounds of it, the full option still offers protection from
ACCIDENTAL screwing of the hardware, by not having the kernel actually HELP with
the destruction, but it still allows full access.
Trever
-- For the finest in family and value oriented products: http://www.daysofyore.com For owner friendly domain names: http://domains.daysofyore.com- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST