linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: provide tty_name() even without CONFIG

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]

Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:21:02 -0700
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
	Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: provide tty_name() even without CONFIG_TTY

On 04/27/2016 10:24 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 April 2016 12:20:02 Paul Moore wrote:
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/tty.h b/include/linux/tty.h
>>> index 3b09f235db66..17b247c94440 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/tty.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/tty.h
>>> @@ -371,6 +371,7 @@ extern void proc_clear_tty(struct task_struct *p);
>>>  extern struct tty_struct *get_current_tty(void);
>>>  /* tty_io.c */
>>>  extern int __init tty_init(void);
>>> +extern const char *tty_name(const struct tty_struct *tty);
>>>  #else
>>>  static inline void console_init(void)
>>>  { }
>>> @@ -391,6 +392,8 @@ static inline struct tty_struct *get_current_tty(void)
>>>  /* tty_io.c */
>>>  static inline int __init tty_init(void)
>>>  { return 0; }
>>> +static inline const char *tty_name(const struct tty_struct *tty)
>>> +{ return "(none)"; }
>>>  #endif
>>
>> As it currently stands tty_name() returns "NULL tty" when the passed
>> tty_struct is NULL while this patch returns "(none)" in the case of
>> CONFIG_TTY=n; it seems like some consistency might be good, yes?  Or
>> do you think there is value in differentiating between the two cases?
>>
>> From an audit point of view, we would prefer if both were "(none)".
> 
> Right, I noticed that the audit code prints "(none)" here while the
> tty code prints "NULL tty", and that meant I could not make it behave
> the same way as all the existing code. I picked "(none)" because
> in case of CONFIG_TTY being disabled that is more logical: it's
> not a NULL pointer because something went wrong, but instead the
> pointer doesn't matter and we know there is no tty.

Apologies for not having foreseen this in the review.
Arnd's solution looks good to me.