linux-kernel - Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?

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:	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/