On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:51 AM, m. allan noah <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Oh- and Dieter, we'll need patches for hp.desc and epson/epson2.desc
that add the :scsi line where required and known.
allan
--
"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
