Hi, Vladimir Nadvornik: > > > I think that updating wodim is a good idea anyway, me: > > Agreed. Joerg Schilling: > NO
Independend of the question wether to use cdrecord, wodim or cdrskin, it makes sense to upgrade from earlier wodims to 1.1.6. It eases the hald problem if one uses the block device on Linux kernel 2.6. wodim-1.1.6 does this by default. If only all hal demons would use O_RDWR|O_EXCL with all their open(2) calls then the world would be nearly ok. We would still have a race condition about who may use the drive at all - but the failures would be less costly and much more understandable to the user. Joerg Schilling: > Hal on Linux is a nightmare. Rob Bogus: > If there are problems in hal (and I totally agree there are), they are > in hal, and it's not a kernel problem if someone writes an ill-behaved > application and then runs it as root. There are also other usage scenarios where open O_EXCL is not a viable alternative. What we need is a system enforced mandatory locking mechanism by which we can keep any other process from sending commands to our burner drive via any of the various system drivers. The bug refered to by Vladimir Nadvornik caused Eduard Bloch to write to LKML. The reply caused me to explore the existing possibilities with the friendly help of Ted T'so and his use cases of libblkid. The result was clear: On Linux there is currently no reliable means to protect a drive from interference by a process which has read-access to the drive. Any precaution can get circumvented by accident, with no bad intention, and unavoidable within the respective use case. It is a bit depressing. Shall i appeal to LKML ? This seems equivalent to the question wether i am ready to dive into Linux kernel development. Eduard Bloch was told that there is no problem if only we userland applications coordinate neatly. But Ted and me found no way to coordinate cdrskin with libblkid ... and we really tried. We detect each other in the moment when the coaster occurs. Not earlier. If i just re-iterate Eduard Bloch's request, then i will very probably receive the same reply. So i can as well skip that step and start my own kernel (cough cough). Are there LKML regulars around here who could give me some advise ? (Not about forking Linux but about convincing the kernel developers.) Have a nice day :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]