[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d2cfzjos.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 20:42:11 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RESEND] procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs. exec seq_file
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> writes:
> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
>
> Testcase:
>
> cat /proc/self/maps >/dev/null
> chmod +x /proc/self/net/packet
> exec /proc/self/net/packet
>
> It triggers lockdep warning:
> I don't know why we allow "chmod +x" on some proc files, notably net-related.
> Is it a bug?
It looks like we simply did not remove the ability to make those files
executable when we realized executable proc files could be a problem.
I expect that part of proc could use an audit where someone figures out
what makes sense. It does appear that chmod XXX /proc/generic_file
is explicitly supported. So we would have to be delicate with any
changes in that area to avoid creating userspace regressions.
Eric
--
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