On Fri, Jul 21, 2000, bodnar42@bodnar42.dhs.org <bodnar42@bodnar42.dhs.org> wrote:
> Alright, actually, after having a cup of coffee (most of which ended up
> on my keyboard :( ), I fully agree with our poor misunderstood friend
> Andre. If something is providing access to something at a protocol level,
> it is its job to make sure that the protocol is not violated.... imagine a
> TCP/IP stack that let you send invalid packets, that wouldn't go over too
> well.
Actually, you can send invalid packets. root has the ability to do so
with raw sockets.
ioctl's are really no different.
> Violations of the ATA specification should be prevented, if not for
> protection from users shooting themselves in the foot (I still fail to see
> this as a threat, BTW), just out of plain old fashioned correctness. Hell,
> I'd be willing to code a patch for it at this point if I knew what the
> fsck I was doin'...
Not the point. I don't think anyone disagrees that a small patch to fix
accidental hardware destruction is good.
However, Andre is trying to say that this will fix the problem forever.
This is absolutely incorrect. root is god. He can do anything. He can
reimplement this ioctl call in several different ways that you cannot
stop.
Fixing bugs is nice, but don't pretend it fixes things it doesn't.
This would only fix accidental problems. It only makes it harder to fry
your HD. It does not solve it completely.
JE
-
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 - 21:00:16 EST