Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:42:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:41:58 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:24585 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:41:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:40:06 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Davidsen To: Jeff Garzik cc: LKML Subject: Re: [patch] My AMD IDE driver, v2.7 In-Reply-To: <3C8D4D12.90606@mandrakesoft.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > And IMO, we should have some basic validation of taskfile requests in > the kernel... > Reason 1: Standard kernel convention. In other ioctls, we check basic > arguments and return EINVAL when they are wrong, even for privieleged > ioctls. If we assume that this path is for commands the kernel doesn't understand, how do we validate them? > Reason 2: If you have multiple programs issuing ATA commands, you would > want a decent amount of synchronization, provided by the kernel, for the > multiple user processes and multiple kernel processes issuing requests. > Having the userspace commands come down a single spot in the kernel > code makes this job a lot easier, if not making the impossible possible :) Linus addressed this, I agree with his proposed three part implementation. AFAIK he said the same thing in a different way. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/