Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 19 May 2008, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > >> Alan Stern wrote: >>> Yes, it never worked properly. But now it fails in a bad way whereas >>> before it failed in a benign way. >> You do realize that, that was pure lock to have a zero'ed buffer. > > Umm. Maybe it SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN! > > The thing is, if we can get partial results back, we really *should* > either error out, or we should have at least cleared the buffer (either > beforehand or when seeing the partial result). Returning a buffer with the > old random contents is a bug. > > And if clearing the buffer not only avoids any security holes and possible > undefined behavior, but _also_ ends up fixing the write protect sense > issue, all the better! > > Linus > -- Sure, inspecting other places that emulate MODE_SENSE, (And inspecting the scsi spec) all zeros is a very good scsi response. Alan do you want to send a fix for all places that initiate a MODE_SENSE command, specifically at scsi_scan.c::scsi_unlock_floptical() ? (Some other places do) Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
