Re: Does this help explain better?? ATA/IDE Thread

From: Richard Zidlicky (Richard.Zidlicky@stud.informatik.uni-erlangen.de)
Date: Sat Jul 22 2000 - 15:49:07 EST


On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:43:24PM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Everyone
>
> I am talking about attempting to invoke unknown vender specific commands
> They do comply with the SPEC but are not part of the SPEC.
> Since I do not have the priviledge of knowing these facts, but know they
> exist. You can not allow a rouge driver attempt to invoke these commands.
>
> This is how disks are/can be damaged.

I really would hate to damage my hd because of a small mistake while
experimenting with some low-level ioctls.

Haven't looked at the patch but IMHO many parts of kernel contain tons
of "superfluous" checks against root's stupidity that would cause a reboot
in the worst case, so I don't understand why accepting the patch is such
an issue.
I would understand technical objections, but "root can do anything anyway"
is not very convincing. One way more or less to shoot my foot can make
a difference in real life.

Maybe the kernel should have a special kill-the-machine ioctl just for the
pleasure of script kiddies and sadistic sysadmins. Would make the kernel
ABI much cleaner and remove the need for many security checks.

Bye
Richard

-
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 - 21:00:19 EST