On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:45:24 -0400 Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > Well, this changes sg behaviour since sg's allow_ops filter has a > > access permission different from blk_verify_command filter's. > > > > I guess that the first thing you need to do is that figuring out a > > proper access permission for each command, which sg maintainer, etc > > can agree. It's pretty hard and that's the reason why this patch has > > not been merged for years, I think. > > I don't think this logic is sound. > > The patch makes it so distros (and individuals, if they're so inclined) > can configure the filter correctly for whatever hardware is present, > regardless of the kernel's ideas of which commands are correct. It > leaves intact the defaults from the current list used by SG_IO and bsg > (and maybe some other interfaces?), which most programs have been using > for quite some time. > > If anything, sg is overdue with converting to using the same command > filter as other direct-scsi-command mechanisms. sg_allow_access() is > really not something we should be keeping. Seems that there is some confusion in the interfaces. We have theree interfaces; scsi_ioctl, bsg, and sg, which let us to execute SCSI commands from the userland. All the interfaces support SG_IO (and they also support their own method). But only scsi_ioctl and bsg use blk_verify_command and sg has the own permission table. -- 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
