On Thu, Jun 26 2008, Adel Gadllah wrote: > 2008/6/26 FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:08:46 +0900 > > FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:05:50 +0200 > >> "Adel Gadllah" <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > 2008/6/26 FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:10:25 +0200 > >> > > "Adel Gadllah" <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> 2008/6/18 Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > >> > Douglas Gilbert wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Peter Jones 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. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> That depends on your viewpoint. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > My viewpoint is this: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 1) Whether you agree with his reasons or not, Linus made it pretty clear > >> > >> > that he's against removing the command filter (see > >> > >> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=115419945212450&w=2 ) > >> > >> > 2) Having different code paths use different filtering code just adds more > >> > >> > confusion. > >> > >> > 3) If we're going to have filtering, it should be configurable on a > >> > >> > per-device basis from userland. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Which of these do you disagree with? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > [...] > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Are per device command filters being proposed? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Yes, that's what the patch implements. And it allows the userland to > >> > >> > configure them according to the needs of the hardware. > >> > >> > >> > >> Jens can we add merge this for .27 or does anyone still has objections? > >> > > > >> > > I think that this patch makes sg's permission stricter. So this could > >> > > break the existing user-space applications. > >> > > > >> > > >> > any particular app in mind? > >> > >> No, but there would be some. > >> > >> > >> > for write access it still allows all commands (because there are some > >> > userspace apps tha rely on this). > >> > >> Yeah, I know. But for read access, some commands will be blocked. > > > > I think that it's not a good idea to say "this patch could break > > something but we have no idea about them. So we can merge this." > > > > It's better to loosen scsi_ioctl's permissions to match with sg's > > permission. > > agreed. > > Jens please apply the attached patch on top of the old one. Thanks, I thought this had already been worked out when I saw the previous discussion. Please verify that this patch then no longer causes ANY different behaviour than what we already have, that's a prerequisite for merging it. I've applied this patch. -- Jens Axboe -- 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
