Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:02:52 -0700 (PDT) | From | Andre Hedrick <> | Subject | Re: disk-destroyer.c |
| |
> I hope that "sending raw packets to the disk" is a priviledged > operation, and not something that simply depends on the permissions on > the disk device?
Yes it is but even priviledged users can not be allowed to send disk level distructive commands.
YES/NO ??
The subsystem needs to protect itself and the hardware from general abuse. In order to do that you must construct a superset (or complete set) of commands that to get blanket access must be a complied option and user is at their own risk. The default should be able to accept all commands and reject the harmful ones. Currently you could issue a modified setfeature used in configuring drive speed and destroy the drive or device.
The object is to protect this from happening even if you are ROOT or have stolen ROOT priviledges.
Does this help explain the issue or should I provide a "disk2brick.c" program to make the point clearer? This will vaporize a drive to the replacement level. Yes you can to that today!
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick The Linux ATA/IDE guy
- 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/
| |