linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: drop "sending ioctl to a partition" message

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: <7717bb8d-4223-9401-f9fa-0deb6d33f784@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Sep 2017 16:59:42 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: drop "sending ioctl to a partition" message

On 21/09/2017 16:53, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This looks ok to me, but do we even need to keep the special
> cases above?  Is there anything relying on the safe but not very
> useful ioctls?

No idea, I stuck to the usual "don't break userspace" rule.

Honestly I doubt anything is using most of those ioctls _in general_,
not just on a partition.

Paolo

> Condensing the thing down to:
> 
> int scsi_verify_blk_ioctl(struct block_device *bd, unsigned int cmd)
> {
> 	if (bd && bd == bd->bd_contains)
> 		return 0;
> 	if (capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
> 		return 0;
> 	return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
> }
> 
> would certainly be nice.