Andrew McNabb <amcnabb@argus-systems.com> wrote:
> Let me try to understand what you're saying...
> It is established that a system's interface allows programs to
> physically destroy a disk drive, without providing any benefit
> whatsoever. However, since it's possible to fry other hardware,
> too, why bother with this problem???
>
> The fact of the matter is, that it is wrong for a program to
> destroy hardware. It is the kernel's job to ensure that it
> can't.
Ahh, but you've set up an impossible burden. It is _impossible_
for the kernel to ensure that a malicious hacker who has obtained
root on your machine does not destroy your hardware. After all,
that hacker can always re-install an old, unsafe kernel version
and ioctl() away, or even bit-bang directly to the raw device!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST