[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1326902676.3271.10.camel@deadeye>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:04:36 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Petr Matousek <pmatouse@...hat.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
James Bottomley <JBottomley@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 3/4] block: fail SCSI passthrough ioctls on
partition devices
On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 10:00 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 05:47 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Changes with respect to 3.3: return -ENOTTY from scsi_verify_blk_ioctl
> > > and -ENOIOCTLCMD from sd_compat_ioctl. ]
> >
> > But in 2.6.32, compat_sys_ioctl will end up returning EINVAL rather than
> > ENOTTY for an unhandled ioctl number.
>
> No, it won't. The ioctl will percolate up the non-compat path and then
> sd_ioctl will return ENOTTY.
Ah, yes.
> > Also, since we're denying ioctls
> > for security reasons rather than because we don't know how to handle
> > them, I don't think there's any harm in doing this.
>
> There is harm. You'll be blacklisting also the standard block device
> ioctls, and those won't work on 32-on-64 anymore. A system with 32-bit
> userland will likely not boot anymore.
It does (yes, I tested that myself now). The standard block device
ioctls are handled without calling the driver's compat_ioctl.
> This is also somewhat exchanged in my original exchange with Linus.
Anyway, I agree that it is not necessary to differ from mainline here.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
When in doubt, use brute force. - Ken Thompson
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists