linux-kernel - Re: [04/18] fuse: reject O_DIRECT flag also in fuse

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:36:42 -0800
From:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Csaba Henk <csaba@...ster.com>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
	Harshavardhana <harsha@...ster.com>
Subject: Re: [04/18] fuse: reject O_DIRECT flag also in fuse_create

Greg KH wrote:
> 2.6.27-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> 
> ------------------
> From: Csaba Henk <csaba@...ster.com>
> 
> commit 1b7323965a8c6eee9dc4e345a7ae4bff1dc93149 upstream.
> 
> The comment in fuse_open about O_DIRECT:
> 
>   "VFS checks this, but only _after_ ->open()"
> 
> also holds for fuse_create, however, the same kind of check was missing there.
> 
> As an impact of this bug, open(newfile, O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_DIRECT) fails, but a
> stub newfile will remain if the fuse server handled the implied FUSE_CREATE
> request appropriately.
> 
> Other impact: in the above situation ima_file_free() will complain to open/free
> imbalance if CONFIG_IMA is set.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Csaba Henk <csaba@...ster.com>
> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> Cc: Harshavardhana <harsha@...ster.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> 
> ---
>  fs/fuse/dir.c |    3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> --- a/fs/fuse/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/dir.c
> @@ -401,6 +401,9 @@ static int fuse_create_open(struct inode
>  	if (flags & O_DIRECT)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	if (flags & O_DIRECT)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +

I must be missing something.  The added part seems to be identical to 
the lines just above.

Forgive me if I am totally misreading the diff.

David Daney


>  	forget_req = fuse_get_req(fc);
>  	if (IS_ERR(forget_req))
>  		return PTR_ERR(forget_req);
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/