[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4831B2E2.8030700@panasas.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 20:03:30 +0300
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
USB Storage list <usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net>,
SCSI development list <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Re: Linux 2.6.26-rc2] Write protect on on
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 May 2008, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
>> Alan Stern wrote:
>>> Yes, it never worked properly. But now it fails in a bad way whereas
>>> before it failed in a benign way.
>> You do realize that, that was pure lock to have a zero'ed buffer.
>
> Umm. Maybe it SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN!
>
> The thing is, if we can get partial results back, we really *should*
> either error out, or we should have at least cleared the buffer (either
> beforehand or when seeing the partial result). Returning a buffer with the
> old random contents is a bug.
>
> And if clearing the buffer not only avoids any security holes and possible
> undefined behavior, but _also_ ends up fixing the write protect sense
> issue, all the better!
>
> Linus
> --
Sure, inspecting other places that emulate MODE_SENSE, (And inspecting the scsi
spec) all zeros is a very good scsi response. Alan do you want to send a fix for all
places that initiate a MODE_SENSE command, specifically at
scsi_scan.c::scsi_unlock_floptical() ? (Some other places do)
Boaz
--
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