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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4F210895.8090100@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:02:29 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>,
	Sven-Haegar Koch <haegar@...net.de>,
	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 01/26/2012 01:07 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 06:10:47PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Sven-Haegar Koch<haegar@...net.de>  wrote:
>>> 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"?
>>
>> I believe that is the case, yes.  Linus was unhappy about ENOIOCTLCMD vs.
>> ENOTTY overall when the patch was first submitted, which lead to that commit.
>> The patches Paolo submitted for stable are the original versions that apply
>> directly to 3.2 and older.
>>
>> 07d106d0a isn't really stable material as it was put into 3.3 to catch any odd
>> fallout from the change.
>
> Ok, thanks both of you, that makes more sense now.  I'll take Paolo's
> updated patches and do a release now.

Yes, that's correct.  Thanks Sven and Josh, I was already sleeping. :)

FWIW, there are a couple more ioctls that need to be in the whitelist. 
I'll submit the patch today or tomorrow, but it doesn't need to hold the 
stable release.

Paolo
--
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/