Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:50:05 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [patch] My AMD IDE driver, v2.7 |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>Your first question is really philosophical. I think that people should >>-not- be able to send undocumented commands through the interface... >> and in this area IMO it pays to be paranoid. >> > >What if the command is perfectly documented, but only for a certain class >of IBM disks? > >Are you going to create a table of every disk out there, along with every >command it can do? > >Remember: the kernel driver is a driver for the host controller, yet the >command is for the _disk_. It makes no sense to check for disk commands in >a host controller driver - they are two different things. > >It's like checking for icmp messages in a network driver. Do you seriously >propose having network drivers check icmp messages for command validity? > See my other message, and thanks for making this analogy :)
I -do- know the distrinction between hosts and devices. I think there should be -some- way, I don't care how, to filter out those unknown commands (which may be perfectly valid for a small subset of special IBM drives). The net stack lets me do filtering, I want to sell you on the idea of letting the ATA stack do the same thing.
You have convinced me that unconditional filtering is bad. But I still think people should be provided the option to filter if they so desire.
Jeff
- 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/
| |