On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 06:12:19PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > > Yes, of course it's a risk. We support a similar ioctl for other drivers, > > e.g. amr(4). the pass-through for scsi(4) and ata(4) devices could > > probably do something similar too. > > The scsi and ata case is very different, because we have enough > documentation to allow us to parse the commands, and perform at least > some kind of access control -- even if we do not do so in all cases in > which we could. > > The case of amr and mfi is very different: as far as I know, there is > no documentation whatsoever of the command format between megacli and > the card firmware, so we cannot, for example, allow hot-plugging or > even battery status checks without allowing overwriting arbitrary disk > blocks. Ugly, ugly, ugly.
Of course closed hardware is ugly, and I'd very much prefer to work on hardware for which I have docs, instead of reverse-engineering. But we have to live with it, unfortunably. -- Manuel Bouyer <[email protected]> NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --
