[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18482.1492778840@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:47:20 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: Unchecked flags in statx(2) [Should be fixed before 4.11-final?]
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Similarly, there appears to be no check for invalid flags in the
> > 'flags' argument of statx(). Why is there also not such a check
> > there?
>
> Like this?
>
> if (mask & STATX__RESERVED)
> return -EINVAL;
Sorry, I misread. You referred to flags, not mask. There's this in
sys_statx:
if ((flags & AT_STATX_SYNC_TYPE) == AT_STATX_SYNC_TYPE)
return -EINVAL;
this in vfs_statx:
if ((flags & ~(AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW | AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT |
AT_EMPTY_PATH | KSTAT_QUERY_FLAGS)) != 0)
return -EINVAL;
and this in vfs_statx_fd:
if (query_flags & ~KSTAT_QUERY_FLAGS)
return -EINVAL;
I don't necessarily agree with that last one, but other people think it should
be there.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists