linux-kernel - Re: setting up CDB filters in udev (was Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] block: add queue-private command filter, editable via sysfs)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121105181809.GE19354@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:18:09 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
	Petr Matousek <pmatouse@...hat.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: setting up CDB filters in udev (was Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] block:
 add queue-private command filter, editable via sysfs)

Hello, Alan.

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 02:50:52PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I proposed a way to implement the ultimately flexible solution (BPF) and
> > you shot it down because it was too complex.  Alan is showing you with
> > multiple examples of why the flexibility would be useful (perhaps nobody
> > would use it, but the use cases _are_ there), and you are mostly
> > ignoring them.
> 
> My feeling too - It feels to me like Tejun is trying to railroad a broken
> non-solution into the system without regards for anyone else and by
> simply dismissing any other input.

The only other use case brought up is allowing use of vendor-specific
commands while burning CDs.  Given that the usual burning has been
working well enough for years now, I don't really think that's a
strong enough reason to add full BPF filtering to SG_IO.  It's just
highly unusual thing to do and there isn't strong enough use case for
it.

To me, it feels like you guys are pushing a feature without strong
enough use case.  So, I'm still pretty strongly against it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/