[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1201252348520.22090@aurora.sdinet.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:51:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Sven-Haegar Koch <haegar@...net.de>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 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 Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?
May be because the stable trees do not have
07d106d0a33d6063d2061305903deb02489eba20? "vfs: fix up ENOIOCTLCMD error
handling"?
c'ya
sven-haegar
--
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
- Ben F.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists