linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sys_waitid: return -EFAULT for NULL

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: <20090113152457.0d7685ad.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:24:57 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	mtk.manpages@...il.com
Cc:	mtk.manpages@...glemail.com, roland@...hat.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	drepper@...hat.com, vegard.nossum@...il.com,
	linux-man@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sys_waitid: return -EFAULT for NULL

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:14:20 +1300
"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> wrote:
> > It's always been invalid to call waitid() with a NULL pointer.  It was an
> > oversight that it was allowed (and acts like a wait4() call instead).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
> 
> Modulo the observation that this change will break any Linux-specific
> application that violate POSIX.1's requirement that infop not be NULL
> (*), and rely on the existing Linux behavior for
> waitd(idtype,id,NULL,options):
> 

Well yes.  waitid() has been in there since 2.6.9.  I assume that it
has had this wait4-emulation mode for that amount of time as well?

> 
> (*) It seems unlikely that such applications exist, and we really
> should make this change for POSIX.1 conformance.

Well, we might get away with it.  But formally speaking, we should live
with our Linux-specific screwup.

If we _are_ going to make this change then we should merge it as far
back in -stable as we can, to reduce the risk that people will develop
applications on kernel version A only to have then behave differently
on version B.

--
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/