Re: [Ping^3] Re: [PATCH] sg_io: allow UNMAP and WRITE SAME without CAP_SYS_RAWIO

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 09/05/2012 10:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 28/08/2012 13:04, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Il 01/08/2012 17:53, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Il 20/07/2012 18:30, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
These commands cannot be issued right now without giving CAP_SYS_RAWIO to
the process who wishes to send them.  These commands can be useful also to
non-privileged programs who have access to the block devices.  For example
a virtual machine monitor needs them to forward trim/discard to host disks.

Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  block/scsi_ioctl.c |    3 ++
  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/scsi_ioctl.c b/block/scsi_ioctl.c
index 260fa80..dd71f18 100644
--- a/block/scsi_ioctl.c
+++ b/block/scsi_ioctl.c
@@ -168,13 +168,16 @@ static void blk_set_cmd_filter_defaults(struct blk_cmd_filter *filter)
  	/* Basic writing commands */
  	__set_bit(WRITE_6, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(WRITE_10, filter->write_ok);
+	__set_bit(WRITE_SAME, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(WRITE_VERIFY, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(WRITE_12, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(WRITE_VERIFY_12, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(WRITE_16, filter->write_ok);
+	__set_bit(WRITE_SAME_16, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(WRITE_LONG, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(WRITE_LONG_2, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(ERASE, filter->write_ok);
+	__set_bit(UNMAP, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(GPCMD_MODE_SELECT_10, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(MODE_SELECT, filter->write_ok);
  	__set_bit(LOG_SELECT, filter->write_ok);

Jens,

can this go in 3.6 as well?
Another ping...
Ping & adding some more folks hoping to get a Reviewed-by or to be
screamed at.

Paolo

Hi Paolo,

Both of these commands are destructive. WRITE_SAME (if done without the discard bits set) can also take a very long time to be destructive and tie up the storage.

I think that restricting them to CAP_SYS_RAWIO seems reasonable - better to vet and give the appropriate apps the needed capability than to widely open up the safety check?

thanks!

Ric


--
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


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux