linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: fcntl, avoid undefined behaviour

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:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:34:15 +0200
From:   Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: fcntl, avoid undefined behaviour

On 10/24/2016, 01:29 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> It looks like it lists this as a "may fail" case:
> 
>     http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/fcntl.html
> 
>     [EINVAL]
>         The cmd argument is F_SETOWN and the value of the argument
>         is not valid as a process or process group identifier.

Huh, my man 3p fcntl only lists [EDEADLK] at that point. (I have 2013
edition opposing to 2016 from the link above)

> IMO, returning an error here is the right thing to do. Either the
> application isn't checking for errors, in which case returning one won't
> matter, or it is, and they probably want to be informed that their
> F_SETOWN didn't do what they expected.

Ok, will do.

-- 
js
suse labs