linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Check O_* flags set with fcntl() on anon

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: <20100215195728.GX30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:57:28 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Check O_* flags set with fcntl() on anon_inode
 files.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 09:26:35AM -0800, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > > [PATCH 1/4] signalfd
> > > [PATCH 2/4] timerfd
> > > [PATCH 3/4] epoll
> > > [PATCH 4/4] eventfd
> > > 
> > > I did not check the perf, kvm-vm, or kvm-vcpu uses of anon_inodes.
> > 
> > Er...  O_ASYNC is silently ignored for regular files as well, so any
> > userland code that tries to rely on fcntl() rejecting it is and always
> > had been badly b0rken.
> 
> Of course. Did you mean to imply that the kernel shouldn't bother to
> reject these, or were you merely making an observation?

I'm wondering why should we start changing that behaviour and what makes
these 4 cases special?
--
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/