Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:55:31 +0100 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: bitkeeper / IDE cleanup |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: >>3. Why do we have something like genric cdrom ioctl handling layer, >> which is basically just adding the above hooks? > > That bit is needed. You want unpriviledged processes to issue a subset of > the available commands so users can do things like play music. Those ioctls > for CDROM are also rather important for back compatibility. > > Thats a seperate but important case. > > There are two things I think you must consider > > #1 "Make the simple things easy" - abstract common cd interface and > friends. Unpriviledged but with strict limits on what can be issued > > #2 "Make the hard possible" - the direct "I know what I am doing" > CAP_SYS_RAWIO interface > > #3 Ioctls that must be issued with kernel help because they change > interface status and must synchronize both the device and the > controller (eg 'go to UDMA3') > > What can hopefully go is ioctls that are complex, setuid required and > could be done by #2.
Amen. I was of course not arguing against the cdrom abstraction layer.
- 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/
| |