Il 13/02/2013 16:35, Douglas Gilbert ha scritto: >> >> Ping? I'm not even sure what tree this should host these patches... > > You are whitelisting SCSI commands so obviously the SCSI tree > and the patch spills over into the block tree. Yeah, an Acked-by is in order but it's not clear from whom and for whom. > Can't see much point in ack-ing the sg changes since most > of the action is at higher levels. > > The question I have is what existing code will this change > break (and will I being getting emails from peeved > developers)? An unlikely situation is that a vendor-specific command in the "low" range (i.e. not 0xc0..0xff) conflicted with an MMC command, so it happened to be enabled. That will now break, but only if executed without CAP_SYS_RAWIO. Nothing will change for programs executed with CAP_SYS_RAWIO. I have not disabled any standards-defined command that used to be enabled, and on the contrary I enabled a few of them, so this could potentially lead to less emails from peeved developers, too. > Is 8 lines of documentation changes enough? My guess is > that SG_IO ioctl pass-through users will be tripped up > and it won't be obvious to them to look at > Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt > for enlightenment; especially if they are using a char > device node from the bsg, sg or st drivers to issue SG_IO. The command whitelist was not documented before. It's quite likely that any documentation except the code itself would not be updated the next time the whitelist is touched. Paolo -- 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
