[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez0Ccpp3yv+FVX9Sp3WHqPh6US=quDjELmv5RYVgqfBtVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:36:02 -0700
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SCSI fixes for 4.18-rc3
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:41 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 10:22 PM James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
> >
> > We did discuss removing the r/w interface, but, as you say, it's been
> > around for ages so it's not clear what regressions would surface if we
> > did.
>
> So since nobody else followed up on this, the attached patch is what I
> was thinking of just committing.
>
> It removes the warnings from the access check, and just puts them
> (unconditionally) at the top of the read/write function instead.
>
> Hmm?
Random unimportant nitpickery:
AFAICS it does mean that if two processes use /dev/sg* - the first one
in a way that passes sg_check_file_access(), the second one in a way
that gets blocked for whatever reason -, the pr_err_once() will fire
for the process that's working and not fire for the one that got
blocked. But if nobody should be using that interface anyway, I guess
that's not a practical concern.
Also, the device is called /dev/sg%d with %d being sdp->index.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists