From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v3] allow userspace to modify scsi command filter on per device basis Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:13:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20080626101345.GO20851@kernel.dk> References: <6cf6b73e0806152249r19cb405ct9d5a33960e619348@mail.gmail.com> <20080616151328Q.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <6cf6b73e0806160222g19d7229dl6a650e13ab36c03b@mail.gmail.com> <20080618051447L.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <48583074.8010909@redhat.com> <48584252.5030901@interlog.com> <48592233.6040408@redhat.com> <6cf6b73e0806260310n5988b59dycb0aeab3b0f5c930@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:19279 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750866AbYFZKNs (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:13:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6cf6b73e0806260310n5988b59dycb0aeab3b0f5c930@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Adel Gadllah Cc: Peter Jones , dgilbert@interlog.com, FUJITA Tomonori , matthew@wil.cx, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 26 2008, Adel Gadllah wrote: > 2008/6/18 Peter Jones : > > Douglas Gilbert wrote: > >> > >> Peter Jones wrote: > >>> > >>> FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > >>> > >>>> Well, this changes sg behaviour since sg's allow_ops filter has a > >>>> access permission different from blk_verify_command filter's. > >>> > >>> > > >>>> > >>>> I guess that the first thing you need to do is that figuring out a > >>>> proper access permission for each command, which sg maintainer, etc > >>>> can agree. It's pretty hard and that's the reason why this patch has > >>>> not been merged for years, I think. > >>> > >>> I don't think this logic is sound. > >> > >> That depends on your viewpoint. > > > > My viewpoint is this: > > > > 1) Whether you agree with his reasons or not, Linus made it pretty clear > > that he's against removing the command filter (see > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=115419945212450&w=2 ) > > 2) Having different code paths use different filtering code just adds more > > confusion. > > 3) If we're going to have filtering, it should be configurable on a > > per-device basis from userland. > > > > Which of these do you disagree with? > > > > [...] > >> > >> Are per device command filters being proposed? > > > > Yes, that's what the patch implements. And it allows the userland to > > configure them according to the needs of the hardware. > > Jens can we add merge this for .27 or does anyone still has objections? Sure, I think it's a good idea. Personally I'd rather get rid of the filter, but that isn't an option. So the next best thing is to make it really per-device and exposed and tweakable. Thanks for picking up the abandoned patch and updating it, I'll add it for 2.6.27. -- Jens Axboe