Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Oleg Verych
Date: Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 7:34 pm

> From: Alan Cox
[]

(offtop: 'cdrom' is as ugly as 'floppy' for anything like usb,
firewire connected storage, why not use 'optics' and 'external' or
something?)


Manpage states something bad about it also...



Programs you've mentioned may have co-operative locking, but 'dd' or
'cat' have no knowledge of it for sure. Yet nothing prevents allowed user
program to use this tools on /dev/tty*.

AFAIK kernel developers are always ready for very broken userspace, yet
co-operative locking is a job of the userspace programmers of very
different tools.




Do you mean co-operative locking or carrier detection as a pre-hotplug
thing (:?

Tell me, please, somebody, why non-exclusive co-operative locking (if it
was implemented anyways), racy and already used in userspace applications
O_EXCL are better than _mandatory locking_? I've found this helpful against
any broken userspace, trying hijack my device and read or write bytes
to it.
____
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices, Eduard Bloch, (Fri Mar 30, 4:17 am)
Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Mar 30, 6:43 am)
Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Mar 30, 12:09 pm)
Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices, Eduard Bloch, (Sat Mar 31, 10:07 am)
Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices, Oleg Verych, (Sat Mar 31, 7:34 pm)