On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 10:32 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 24/05/2013 10:03, James Bottomley ha scritto: > >>>>> > >>> Does anyone in the real world actually care about this bug? > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> Yes, or I would move on and not waste so much time on this. > >>> > > > >>> > > Fine, so produce a simple fix for this bug which we can discuss that's > >>> > > not tied to this feature. > >> > > >> > Honestly, I have no idea how this is even possible. > > Really? It looks to me like a simple block on the commands for disk > > devices in the opcode switch would do it (with a corresponding change to > > sg.c:sg_allow_access). > > Which switch? What I can do is something like this in blk_verify_command:
not in blk_verify_command: outside of it, in the three places it's used. > if (q->sgio_type == TYPE_ROM) > return 0; > if (rq->cmd[0] == 0xA4) > return -EPERM; > if (!is_write && > (req->cmd[0] == ... || rq->cmd[0] == ...)) > return -EPERM; > > But then the particular patch you're replying to is still necessary, > and you're slowing down blk_verify_command. It's a set if if switches in non performance critical code. > It may be fine for stable > and -rc, but IMHO it calls for a better implementation in 3.11. What goes into stable should be what goes into the real kernel and it helps separate the bug fix from feature argument. James > (Besides, I did it like this because it is what Tejun suggested). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
