RE: [usb-storage] [Merging ATA passthru] on integrating SMART/ATA-Security in usb-storage driver

Timothy Thelin
2005-11-07T20:18:09Z

> >
> > Can we trigger black listing based on the above
> vendor/product values?
> > i.e. can you check for these values in usb-storage
> slave_configure code?
>
> Yes. The patch below illustrates how. You'll have to change
> the name of
> the sdev flag to something sensible...
>
> I firmly believe this is the wrong approach, however. It's a
> specific
> solution to a general problem. I would much prefer to add a
> new flag to
> struct request.

I totally agree.

>
> > Yeh, some other hardware might want lun inihibit in the
> future, and that
> > could still be added back, but IMHO black list is better.
>
> I'd say it's inevitable. And it may even end up being
> standard-based, not
> vendor/product based.

Within a year from now, there are going to be USB devices
natively supporting the SAT passthru CDB. Once this happens,
its going to be CDB based and not vendor/product based on
when to not mangle the CDB; chips from different vendors
will support the CDB. The blacklist approach really isn't
going to scale, where the flag approch will. Plus with
a blacklist there would always be a lead time until a
device with passthru supported works correctly under the
kernel (blacklist update), where with a flag approach,
support is automatic.

Regards,
Tim Thelin