linux-kernel - Re: Ioctl warning for a partition

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: <CA+55aFwkRhsdAYwP-S5_qPkRX=dMSnxv5Ow1ULaSJjKe3aTy2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:01:10 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	James Bottomley <JBottomley@...allels.com>, mmarek@...e.cz
Subject: Re: Ioctl warning for a partition

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> It's easy enough to silence the warning the same way as
> CDROM_GET_CAPABILITY since the ioctl is safe but it's not so simple for
> 32-bit userspace.  MTIOCGET32 is defined only in fs/compat_ioctl.c so we
> cannot easily add it to scsi_verify_blk_ioctl(). Any opinion how to cleanly
> solve this? The only idea I had was to define compat structures and ioctl
> numbers in a special header and use it both in fs/compat_ioctl.c and in
> block/scsi_ioctl.c.

I suspect we can just remove the warning entirely - once we've gotten
enough coverage with the -rc kernels that people (me in particular)
are happy that no normal load really needs it, and returning an error
is fine.

So I don't really consider the warning to be something long-term - I
wanted it to make sure that some random binary in some odd
distribution wouldn't break in mysterious ways that would take a lot
of debugging to find. And so that we really know what we end up
blocking in practice.

I'm not sure how good the -rc kernel coverage is, but I think it's
good enough that we can drop the warning before doing a real 3.3
release. And I don't think the stable kernel versions ever got that
warning printout, did they? That would be great for coverage, of
course, if they did.

                      Linus
--
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/