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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0910280341331.19088@skynet.skynet.ie>
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:43:07 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	airlied@...il.com, andi@...stfloor.org, arnd@...db.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?

> 
> > DrNick on irc suggested just doing:
> > if (is_compat_task()) ptr &= 0x00000000FFFFFFFF;
> > 
> > Is there a one liner I can just do in the actual ioctls instead of
> > adding 20 compat
> > ones?
> 
> Just do the right thing and pass all userland compat pointers
> through the correct compat_*() macros.

I wondered why the other ioctls worked,

(uint32_t __user *)(unsigned long)card_res->fb_id_ptr;

we already opencoded this (probably before it was macroisied or we just 
pasted it), so the radeon one is buggy, I should just go and compat_* all 
of these then and we should be all happy?

Dave.
--
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/