Re: ide-cd problems

[Jens Axboe]

On Fri, Aug 06 2004, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2004-08-06 at 07:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Perhaps if you acknowledge that it wont be perfect, then it's becomes
> > more acceptable imo. So you can issue some commands that do write to the
> > drive even as a regular user, but none that permanently alter the state
> > of the drive or its media (to the best of our knowledge). Other commands
> > you let through.
> 
> The code you included is roughly the kind of filtering I mean except
> that unknown commands must not get through without CAP_SYS_RAWIO.
> Anything that is doubtful doesn't get through. As to the location you do
> it there are at least two ways to handle that. One is that you stick the
> CAP_SYS_RAWIO of the requester in a flag in the request block the other
> is that you do it at the top layer. Some BSD socket implementations take
> the former approach and it works very well as the driver can make a
> final decision but is told the rights attached to the command.
> 
> So once its
> 
> 	switch()
> 	{
> 		case READ6:
> 		case READ10:
> 				...
> 			/* Always */
> 			break;
> 		case WRITE6:
> 		case WRITE10:
> 			...
> 			/* if write */
> 		default:
> 			if(capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
> 			/* Only administrators get to do arbitary things */
> 
> I agree with it. 

That's the case I don't agree with, and why I didn't like the idea
originally. That suddenly requires a patching of the kernel because of
new commands in new devices. Like when dvd readers became common, you
can't just require people to update their kernel because a few new
commands are needed to drive them from user space.

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/