linux-kernel - Re: Too verbose compat

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:	Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:30:43 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux/PPC Development <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
	Hiroaki Fuse <Hiroaki_Fuse@...scei.sony.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Too verbose compat_ioctl messages?

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> Fuse-san discovered that running the umount that's part of busybox on a PS3
> with a recent kernel causes an error message to be printed on the console:
> 
> | ioctl32(busybox:1340): Unknown cmd fd(3) cmd(00004c01){t:'L';sz:0} arg(00000000) on /dev/sda1 
> 
> On older kernels (e.g. 2.6.16), this doesn't happen.
> 
> It can easily be reproduced by installing busybox and running
> 
> | busybox umount /mountpoint
> 
> on a mounted filesystem (except when using the loop device).
> 
> Apparently Busybox uses the LOOP_CLR_FD ioctl when unmounting a file system,
> which is supported by the loop device only.
> On other block device types, this ioctl is not supported:
>   - With a 64-bit application, the block layer returns ENOTTY (Inappropriate
>     ioctl for device), while the SCSI layer returns EINVAL (Invalid argument)
>   - With a 32-bit application, the compat_ioctl code returns EINVAL (Invalid
>     argument) and prints an error on the console (for the first 50
>     occurrencies, cfr. fs/compat_ioctl.c:compat_sys_ioctl())
> 
> As I understand, compat_ioctl_error() is used to inform the user about ioctl
> values that are not yet handled by the compat_ioctl layer. However, LOOP_CLR_FD
> doesn't need to be handled (no data to convert between 32-bit and 64-bit), and
> it's perfectly valid for a block device to not implement it.
> So it's confusing to print this error message.
> 
> Is there anything we can do about this?
> 

For one thing, it looks like we're returning the wrong thing (EINVAL
rather than ENOTTY) across the board.  This was unfortunately a common
misunderstanding with non-tty-related ioctls in the early days of Linux.

	-hpa
-
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/