Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:44:08 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@scsiguy.com> To: Cristiano Duarte <cunha17@uol.com.br> Cc: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BUG introduced in kernels above 2.4.18 ? Message-ID: <403520000.1077219848@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> In-Reply-To: <40350174.7000305@uol.com.br> References: <4034D259.5050001@uol.com.br> <370790000.1077213725@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <40350174.7000305@uol.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> What I mean is that the scanner is recognized and is totally functional > with kernel 2.4.18(in Fedora Core 1) and is totally useless with kernel > 2.4.20/2.4.22(in RedHat9 or Fedora Core 1). If a protocol violation is > happening because of the scanner or scanner utility, this violation is > supposed to happen with kernel 2.4.18 and, even if this kernel doesn't > check for violations, when this violation happen, the kernel should reject > the scanner, what doesn't happen. The protocol violations were not checked for in earlier driver versions. The driver has no way to know if the violation will cause harm or not. In your situation, it may be safe to proceed, but the driver errs on the side of safety and aborts the command instead. This is why your scanner is not functional with later versions of the driver. > BTW, the software I'm using is SANE(sane-find-scanner and scanimage) and > they are working with kernels 2.4.18 and below, get garbage with kernel > 2.4.20 and don't work at all with kernels 2.4.22 and 2.4.24. That data point doesn't tell us if SANE is properly formating its commands. If it is not, you will get exactly the behavior you are reporting with a driver that bothers to check for this particular protocol violation (cdb_len is larger than actual cdb size). -- Justin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?403520000.1077219848>