On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Julien BLACHE <jb at jblache.org> wrote:
> "m. allan noah" <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>>> + printf ("# anything with device-id \"6\" in the SCSI-system is a
>>>> scanner.\n");
>
>>> There's no way generic rules like that are going in, because it's a
>>> given that they'll end up breaking something on users' systems down
>>> the road.
>>
>> Julien- I think I have to side with Dieter at least on the device type
>> 6 being always allowed. We don't know the exact vendor or model
>> strings for any scsi device in the .desc files. Many times, the
>
> It's OK for type 0x6, indeed. I was confused by the comment which
> improperly used "device-id" which has another meaning in SCSI jargon
> and made me go "WTF?".
>
>> backends don't even know. I'm indifferent toward the 'processor'
>> models, since there are so few and it should be possible to get a list
>> of those.
>
> Type 0x3 can't get a generic rule, we don't know what else could be
> connected to the system advertising this device type; this would open
> a security hole.
>
> And the whole point of this exercise was to get a list of such devices
> to tell HAL to treat them as scanners, so I think we're good with the
> updated patch I posted.
Agreed- If it works for Dieter, lets go with that. Nice work guys.
allan
--
"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
