On Tuesday 25 January 2005 13:45, you wrote: [snip] : If I'm not mistaken, Peter Jones has posted a few iterations of such an : fs some months ago.
Thank you. I will check this... : > Do we have a clear understanding that this fs would only : > be a benefit if *All* the different ways to access the device would : > use the same policy enforcement and consistently allow or : > disallow certain operations regardless of the access method? : : The command restriction table _only_ works through the SG_IO path, which : does include CDROM_SEND_PACKET as well since it is layered on top of : SG_IO. It doesn't control various driver ioctl exported interfaces, they : would need to add a callback to verify_command() for permission checks. Hmm... what exactly does that mean? Who is ment by "_they_ would need..."? I don't want to take responsability for the reaction of the xine/mplayer/etc. community the day their software stops playing video DVDs on Linux ;-) Regards, Elias - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
