| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20091027.204310.170866512.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:43:10 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: andi@...stfloor.org Cc: airlied@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, arnd@...db.de Subject: Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible? From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:34:55 +0100 > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:28:10PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: >> Well this was what I was trying to gather, so maybe I just need to write >> something up to state that compat_ioctl is always required for new ioctls >> that pass pointers or 64-bit values hiding pointers, so more people >> don't make this mistake going forward. I can say when we inquired about this >> 2 or so years ago when designing kms I didn't get this answer, which is a pity. > > Right now you could probably ignore it (if you document it), since > there are no non s390 architectures with this problem, just > prepare mentally that you might need to revisit this at some point. You can't ignore it on sparc64, it already OOPS's, and I refuse to live with that "if (is_compat_task())" masking hack, no way. We designed portable interfaces for doing this stuff, please use it. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists