linux-kernel - Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg

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]

Message-ID: <20070411123102.7dc238d7@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:31:02 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Eduard Bloch <edi@....de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	debburn-devel@...ts.alioth.debian.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...e.de>
Subject: Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

> > Can we do following without having side effects:
> > 
> > open("/dev/sr0",O_EXCL|O_RDWR); /* no matter what it returns */
> > fcntl(..., F_SETLK); /* no matter what it returns */
> > ioctl(f, SCSI_IOCTL_GET_IDLUN, &x);
> > ioctl(f, SCSI_IOCTL_GET_BUS_NUMBER, &jo);
> > 
> > Can you guarantee us that bit? 

open() has side effects. The CD layer allows you to open with O_NDELAY if
you want to avoid them.

> [1] and when we get real critical questions then everything we get is
> radio silence? Very kindly. NOT.

Given the attitude that was shown before be glad I'm even bothering to
reply to this.

-
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/