[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070401011452.7c0cbce9@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 01:14:52 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Eduard Bloch <edi@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, debburn-devel@...ts.alioth.debian.org
Subject: Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices
> > > The use of /dev/sg* is still common practice, its invention predates
> >
> > The /dev/sg interface cannot do the locking. If you use /dev/sg you are
>
> Again, it doesn't have to. It can pass the locking operations to the
> related block device driver.
No it can't. The driver has no idea what the locking rules are for
arbitary command blocks send to arbitary devices. /dev/sg is a *raw*
interface. You can send anything to anyone, and the locking rules for
that are far too complex for a giant morass of kernel code to get added.
The mess begins because you use /dev/sg and put it in a cdrom group
instead of using SG_IO on the /dev/sr device. The mess continues because
of the user of O_EXCL locking thus forcing re-open/close by HAL instead
of fcntl based co-operative locking.
The job of the kernel is not and never has been to anticipate and correct
everything stupid someone tries to do in user space.
As I said before the people wanting to arbitrate serial ports got this
right in the mid 1970's your situation is not much more complicated,
unless you persist in using /dev/sg - which yes does make it hard, but so
does writing it in COBOL, or while standing on your head. And the
solution to all three cases is the same *DONT DO IT*
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists