>
>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/