linux-kernel - Re: BUG? "Call fasync() functions without the BKL" is racy

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: <20081204143409.GA10384@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:34:09 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG? "Call fasync() functions without the BKL" is racy

On 12/03, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:21:02 +0100
> Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > Serioulsy, I think the best (partial, yes) fix for now is to restore
> > > lock_kernel() in setfl() and change ioctl_fioxxx() accordingly.
> > > At least this protect us from tty too.
> >
> > For 2.6.28 I agree.
>
> OK, what do you all think of the following?  It returns fcntl.c to its
> previous state, and adds locking in fs/ioctl.c.  It's worth noting that
> ioctl_fioasync() has always been racy in exactly the same way.

Yes, I agree with you and Andi, imho this is what we need for 2.6.28.

Thanks Jonathan!

Oleg.

--
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/