linux-kernel - Re: [ 022/108] scsi: Silence unnecessary warnings about ioctl to 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: <500CFDC2.2080603@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:31:14 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	James Bottomley <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [ 022/108] scsi: Silence unnecessary warnings about ioctl to
 partition

Il 23/07/2012 03:07, Ben Hutchings ha scritto:
> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> ------------------
> 
> From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> 
> commit 6d9359280753d2955f86d6411047516a9431eb51 upstream.
> 
> Sometimes, warnings about ioctls to partition happen often enough that they
> form majority of the warnings in the kernel log and users complain. In some
> cases warnings are about ioctls such as SG_IO so it's not good to get rid of
> the warnings completely as they can ease debugging of userspace problems
> when ioctl is refused.
> 
> Since I have seen warnings from lots of commands, including some proprietary
> userspace applications, I don't think disallowing the ioctls for processes
> with CAP_SYS_RAWIO will happen in the near future if ever. So lets just
> stop warning for processes with CAP_SYS_RAWIO for which ioctl is allowed.
> 
> CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> CC: James Bottomley <JBottomley@...allels.com>
> CC: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
> Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> [bwh: Backported to 3.2: use ENOTTY, not ENOIOCTLCMD]
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
> ---
>  block/scsi_ioctl.c |    5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- a/block/scsi_ioctl.c
> +++ b/block/scsi_ioctl.c
> @@ -721,11 +721,14 @@ int scsi_verify_blk_ioctl(struct block_device *bd, unsigned int cmd)
>  		break;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	/* In particular, rule out all resets and host-specific ioctls.  */
>  	printk_ratelimited(KERN_WARNING
>  			   "%s: sending ioctl %x to a partition!\n", current->comm, cmd);
>  
> -	return capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO) ? 0 : -ENOTTY;
> +	return -ENOTTY;

Here was the conflict, and you fixed it correctly.

Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>

>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(scsi_verify_blk_ioctl);
>  
> 
> 
> 


--
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/