linux-kernel - [232/272] Input: sysrq - ensure sysrq_enabled and __sysrq

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, 15 Feb 2011 16:14:49 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Cc:	stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...l.ru>
Subject: [232/272] Input: sysrq - ensure sysrq_enabled and __sysrq_enabled are consistent

2.6.37-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

------------------

From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>

commit 8c6a98b22b750c9eb52653ba643faa17db8d3881 upstream.

Currently sysrq_enabled and __sysrq_enabled are initialised separately
and inconsistently, leading to sysrq being actually enabled by reported
as not enabled in sysfs.  The first change to the sysfs configurable
synchronises these two:

    static int __read_mostly sysrq_enabled = 1;
    static int __sysrq_enabled;

Add a common define to carry the default for these preventing them becoming
out of sync again.  Default this to 1 to mirror previous behaviour.

Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...l.ru>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>


---
 drivers/tty/sysrq.c   |    2 +-
 include/linux/sysrq.h |    3 +++
 kernel/sysctl.c       |    3 ++-
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
 #include <asm/irq_regs.h>
 
 /* Whether we react on sysrq keys or just ignore them */
-static int __read_mostly sysrq_enabled = 1;
+static int __read_mostly sysrq_enabled = SYSRQ_DEFAULT_ENABLE;
 static bool __read_mostly sysrq_always_enabled;
 
 static bool sysrq_on(void)
--- a/include/linux/sysrq.h
+++ b/include/linux/sysrq.h
@@ -17,6 +17,9 @@
 #include <linux/errno.h>
 #include <linux/types.h>
 
+/* Enable/disable SYSRQ support by default (0==no, 1==yes). */
+#define SYSRQ_DEFAULT_ENABLE	1
+
 /* Possible values of bitmask for enabling sysrq functions */
 /* 0x0001 is reserved for enable everything */
 #define SYSRQ_ENABLE_LOG	0x0002
--- a/kernel/sysctl.c
+++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
@@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int proc_taint(struct ctl_table *
 #endif
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ
-static int __sysrq_enabled; /* Note: sysrq code ises it's own private copy */
+/* Note: sysrq code uses it's own private copy */
+static int __sysrq_enabled = SYSRQ_DEFAULT_ENABLE;
 
 static int sysrq_sysctl_handler(ctl_table *table, int write,
 				void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,


--
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/