Re: [Cdrecord-support] Cdrtools-2.01.01a10 ready
Joerg Schilling <schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> writes:
> - scsi-linux-ata.c cast added to avoid strange warning from GCC
> caused by bad coding style in the Linux kernel.
Have you reported this upstream so it can be fixed before 2.6.17?
If not, shut up.
> - scsi-linux-ata.c trying again to add workarounds for new Linux
> Kernel self-incompatibilities: Adding the same uid workaround
> as for scsi-linux-sg.c. Note that I am not sure if this is the
> only incompatibility that has been added with Linux-2.6.16, it may
> be that they did also break the behavior of seteuid().
Yeah, sure, break seteuid()... proof?
This pretty much looks like the same old command filter story with
unprivileged users not being allowed to send random LOAD FIRMWARE or
other SELF DESTRUCT commands, and commands that cdrecord/readcd/whatever
needs not being whitelisted accordingly. And that state isn't going to
change without *your* compiling a list of necessary commands and with
the required privilege for each command.
Rather than doing just that list, or lift artificial barriers you
erected in the Linux interfacing code, you write endless comments and
discussions about the Linux kernel that is oh so bad. How very efficient.
But thanks BTW for switching to the CDDL, now with GPL 2a and 2c, it's
easier to make your nonconformant code behave.
> Please help me with further testing and debugging.
>
> I am however short before giving up completely with Linux.
You have already done that, by pissing at people who aren't present to
defend themselves.
And BTW linuxcheck() is still nonfunctional on 2.6.10 and newer. But
that's a good thing since it omits yet another annoying warning :-)
--
Matthias Andree
Reply to: