linux-kernel - Re: Yet another pipe related oops.

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+55aFx=BPQ2empEahqCs2hQ=sRaw3OjJotrS6OMT3e6tUVMLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:33:35 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Yet another pipe related oops.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Actually, that's my fault - check lost in patch reordering.  My apologies ;-/
> Eventually, we want that in fs/splice.c side of things (no point repeating it
> for every buffer, after all), but for now this is the obvious minimal fix.

Applied.

Do we actually have files with NULL f_ops pointers? Should we? What
could we possibly do with a file descriptor that doesn't have any
fops?

Also, perhaps we should do something more akin to what we do for
dentry functions where we validate them on registration, and we could
fix up or validate read/write pointers, with semantics something like

    if (!fop->write)
        fop->write = fop->aio_write ? do_sync_write : EINVAL_write;
    if (!fop->read)
        fop->read = fop->aio_read ? do_sync_read : EINVAL_read;

kind of things?

Not a big deal, perhaps.

              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/