linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] macintosh: Explicitly set llseek to no

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0910212350210.3526@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:53:21 +0200 (CEST)
From:	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arndbergmann@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] macintosh: Explicitly set llseek to no_llseek in
 ans-lcd



On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:33:17PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> > > Should we better pushdown default_llseek to every to every
> > > file operations that don't implement llseek?
> > > I don't know how many of them don't implement llseek() though.
> > > 
> > > That said we can't continue anymore with this default attribution
> > > of default_llseek() on new fops.
> > > 
> > 
> > If you don't explicitly set it to no_llseek, you automatically get the
> > default_llseek, which uses the BKL. So if your driver doesn't need it, it 
> > is best to explicitly set it to no_llseek.
> 
> 
> Sure, that's the right thing to do.
> 
>  
> > There is also a generic_file_llseek_unlocked, somewhat analogous to the 
> > unlocked_ioctls that you can use if you don't need to provide a full 
> > llseek yourself.
> 
> 
> No problem with that. Setting no_llseek or generic_file_llseek_unlocked,
> depending on the context is the right thing to do.
> 
> What I'm wondering about concerns the future code that will have
> no llsek() implemented in their fops.
> 
> We can't continue to use default_llseek() for future code unless we
> want to continue these post reviews and fixes forever.
> 

I'm thinking that the simplier approach, would be to make the 
default_llseek the unlocked one. Then you only have to audit the drivers 
that have the BKL - ie the ones we are auditing anyway, and explicitly set 
them to the bkl locked llseek.

There might be a hidden interaction though between the non-unlocked 
variety of ioctls and default llseek though.
--
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/