On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > critical user data. > > > > > > In other words, it should work correctly or not at all. At the least this > > > should be a config option, like UNSAFE_TAPE_POSITIONING or some such. > > > And show the option if the build includes BROKEN features. That should put > > > the decision where it belongs and clarify the possible failures. > > > > CONFIG_SECURITY_HOLES doesn't make sense. > > Better to just fix the security holes instead. > > I think you're an idealist. If this were something other than tar it would > be simple, and you would be right. Well, you ARE right, but a change which > breaks tar, which many sites use for backups, is really not practical, > without a loophole until tar gets fixed. And as Alan noted, keeping track > of the physical position is very hard, and getting a tar fix might take a > while. >
No the problem is that the *st* code has a security hole. THAT is the problem. Not that it would be seekable. But how it implements the seeks. THAT part is the problem. And THAT can be fixed. - 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/
