linux-kernel - Re: [v2] Re: [091/129] block: fail SCSI passthrough ioctls on partition devices

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:	Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:39:37 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	James Bottomley <JBottomley@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [v2] Re: [091/129] block: fail SCSI passthrough ioctls on
 partition devices

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:43:50PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > You need to return -ENOTTY from scsi_verify_blk_ioctl and -ENOIOCTLCMD from
> > sd_compat_ioctl, because -ENOIOCTLCMD will not be handled correctly by
> > block/ioctl.c.  This would break BLKROSET and BLKFLSBUF done by non-root
> > but with the appropriate capabilities.
> >
> > Fixed patch follows.  If you prefer that I send an interdiff, let me know.

Wait, why do you want the stable trees to diverge from what is in
Linus's tree with regards to the error codes being returned?

That doesn't seem safe, or sane.

So for now, I'm going to follow what is in Linus's tree.  If you
need/want the error codes to be different, then shouldn't it also be
done there as well?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/