linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/16] devpts: Attempting to get it right

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:35:52 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, security@...ian.org,
	"security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"security@...ntu.com >> security" <security@...ntu.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@...el32.net>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] devpts: Attempting to get it right

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> I have work inspired by this rolled into my code.  I will post shortly
> after a little more testing.

Actually, I have a slightly fixed version in my tree. I've been
running this on my own machines for a few days, just to verify, along
with some testing.

The fixes are some cleanups of the header file (the !UNIX98 section
that nobody uses was bogus), and fixing "devpts_get_ref()" to get the
"struct file *" argument too. The current code doesn't need it, but
the code to actually look up the right pts/ directory from the ptmx
file open needs it because that's where the path is - passing in just
the inode isn't sufficient).

Anyway, I think I'll just merge my branch instead of sending out
another emailed patch, because I don't think that patch is
controversial or unsafe. It doesn't actually change any semantics, and
only does cleanups. If it breaks something due to the rules about
private_data being different for slave and master side pty's, then the
old code was broken too - it used to always put a inode pointer in
there, but they were very different inode pointers.

             Linus