Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:39:12 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Pegasus Mc Cleaft <ken@mthelicon.com> Cc: mj@feral.com, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "Lyndon Nerenberg \(VE6BBM/VE7TFX\)" <lyndon@orthanc.ca> Subject: Re: Adding disk firmware programming capability to camcontrol Message-ID: <CAGH67wQheS8azysjr5oEyu6fw7QdP4m2VfPDRHU=DixZOyhdow@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <003101cc95ca$80ec8b60$82c5a220$@com> References: <4EAB2D38.4040200@feral.com> <a6ce5a46de726137f158b145db65f691@orthanc.ca> <003101cc95ca$80ec8b60$82c5a220$@com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Pegasus Mc Cleaft <ken@mthelicon.com> wrot=
e:
>>> The linux hdparm program is so paranoid about this that you have to use
>>> extra arguments like "--yes-really-destroy-my-disk-drive" to do this.
>>
>>I concur. Loudly. =A0The ability to brick your hardware is just too
>>large to not make people go through the "I tell you three times"
>>dance. =A0It's not like people will do this often enough that the
>>pain will be fatal. =A0And if it is, they ought to be bright enough to
>>know how to automate the process.
>>
>>--lyndon
>
> Hi Lyndon and group,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I tend to disagree that there should be such argument anti=
cs
> employed to protect an operation such as this. Being root should be the o=
nly
> protection needed (of course, that's only my opinion). I don=92t want to =
have
> to look up in a man page what magic token I need to add to prove to the
> utility that I understand the consequences of what I am about to do. I
> personally wouldn't mind a simple "Are you sure?" if the magic token is n=
ot
> added on the command line, however.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0To me, the only difference between borking a drive because=
of bad
> firmware and typing "rm -rf *" from root is about =A340. =A0You still los=
e at
> least a day rebuilding/restoring everything.
Unfortunately not backs up their systems on a regular basis.
Having an interactive prompt with a loud warning like many vendor
tools provide today with a non-interactive override option is
sufficient.
That being said, camcontrol doesn't understand the concept of
interactive vs non-interactive use, so it seems like its design would
need to be redone if you go this route.
Thanks,
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGH67wQheS8azysjr5oEyu6fw7QdP4m2VfPDRHU=DixZOyhdow>