linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.2 039/134] Input: evdev - do not report errors form flush()

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: <20150926205314.104335449@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 26 Sep 2015 13:54:51 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.2 039/134] Input: evdev - do not report errors form flush()

4.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>

commit eb38f3a4f6e86f8bb10a3217ebd85ecc5d763aae upstream.

We've got bug reports showing the old systemd-logind (at least
system-210) aborting unexpectedly, and this turned out to be because
of an invalid error code from close() call to evdev devices.  close()
is supposed to return only either EINTR or EBADFD, while the device
returned ENODEV.  logind was overreacting to it and decided to kill
itself when an unexpected error code was received.  What a tragedy.

The bad error code comes from flush fops, and actually evdev_flush()
returns ENODEV when device is disconnected or client's access to it is
revoked. But in these cases the fact that flush did not actually happen is
not an error, but rather normal behavior. For non-disconnected devices
result of flush is also not that interesting as there is no potential of
data loss and even if it fails application has no way of handling the
error. Because of that we are better off always returning success from
evdev_flush().

Also returning EINTR from flush()/close() is discouraged (as it is not
clear how application should handle this error), so let's stop taking
evdev->mutex interruptibly.

Bugzilla: http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=939834
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 drivers/input/evdev.c |   13 ++++---------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/input/evdev.c
+++ b/drivers/input/evdev.c
@@ -290,19 +290,14 @@ static int evdev_flush(struct file *file
 {
 	struct evdev_client *client = file->private_data;
 	struct evdev *evdev = client->evdev;
-	int retval;

-	retval = mutex_lock_interruptible(&evdev->mutex);
-	if (retval)
-		return retval;
+	mutex_lock(&evdev->mutex);

-	if (!evdev->exist || client->revoked)
-		retval = -ENODEV;
-	else
-		retval = input_flush_device(&evdev->handle, file);
+	if (evdev->exist && !client->revoked)
+		input_flush_device(&evdev->handle, file);

 	mutex_unlock(&evdev->mutex);
-	return retval;
+	return 0;
 }

 static void evdev_free(struct device *dev)

--
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/