linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Kconfig: add warning about permission of config file

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, 25 May 2011 05:46:50 +0900
From:	Hiromu Yakura <hiromu1996@...il.com>
To:	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
Cc:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zippel@...ux-m68k.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kconfig: add warning about permission of config file

On Tue, May 24, 2011, at 2:59, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Hiromu Yakura <hiromu1996@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011, at 0:50, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz> wrote:
> >> > I see, qconf lacks a check for the return value of conf_write() in
> >> > ConfigMainWindow::closeEvent(), gconf does check the return value, but only
> >> > displays it in the bottom box of the main window instead of a message box.
> >> > Neither of them return failure in the error case. These bugs should be
> >> > indeed fixed.
> >> >
> >> agree.
> >>
> >> > But I don't like the directory permission check, it only
> >> > handles one case, but does not handle permission on the .config file itself
> >> > with KCONFIG_OVERWRITECONFIG=1, ENOSPC and so on.
> >> >
> >> seconded.
> > I'm sorry for forgetting to handle a case which was set KCONFIG_OVERWRITECONFIG.
> > So I rewrote the patch and attach it.
> >
> > Thanks for your advice.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hiromu Yakura <hiromu1996@...il.com>
> >
> Let me re-state: your patch does not handle all the case where
> conf_write() may fails, and I do not think we want to preemptively
> check for all errors open(2) may return.
conf_write() is called after the configure changed.
So I don't think we should handle the failed case of conf_write()
because the purpose of this patch is not to losing changes.


--
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/