[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F4DDE14.8050406@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:13:08 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: avoid false positive warnings on ioctl to partition
Il 29/02/2012 01:14, Linus Torvalds ha scritto:
> So I'm still not convinced this is safe, and feel a bit worried about
> us possibly silently missing some things. That
>
> default:
> return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
>
> is what worries me.
>
> Blocking the ones we *know* about and understand I'm perfectly fine
> with. And the SG_IO case looks fine. It's the possibly unknown users
> that still worry me.
I understand.
We do have a good grasp of what's happening. We did get reports for
SG_IO, for false positives that would have returned -ENOTTY, and for
ioctls that need to be passed. We couldn't expect anything better than
this, I think.
I checked in the source and all scsi_host-specific ioctls need
filtering. Of course we might be missing something really obscure which
is rarely used in the wild. But being 100% sure that nothing breaks is
impossible, unfortunately, so does it make sense to aim at 100%? And it
should be extremely easy to bisect failures. Even with all the
differences, it reminds me of the recent change to poll.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists