linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 04/12] misc: xilinx_sdfec: Add open, close and ioctl

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: <BL0PR02MB5681C0D1D5DB5F57E3640D9ACB400@BL0PR02MB5681.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:10:35 +0000
From:   Dragan Cvetic <draganc@...inx.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Derek Kiernan <dkiernan@...inx.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 04/12] misc: xilinx_sdfec: Add open, close and ioctl



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@...db.de]
> Sent: Tuesday 19 March 2019 15:36
> To: Dragan Cvetic <draganc@...inx.com>
> Cc: gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>; Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>; Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>;
> Derek Kiernan <dkiernan@...inx.com>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] misc: xilinx_sdfec: Add open, close and ioctl
> 
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:59 PM Dragan Cvetic <draganc@...inx.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +       /* Only one open per device at a time */
> > > > +       if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&xsdfec->open_count)) {
> > > > +               atomic_inc(&xsdfec->open_count);
> > > > +               return -EBUSY;
> > > > +       }
> > >
> > > What is that limitation for? Is it worse to open it twice than
> > > to dup() or fork()?
> > >
> > The device can be opened only once.
> 
> What I mean here is that preventing the double open() is
> a fairly weak protection: it means you cannot have multiple
> 'struct file' pointers attached to the same inode, but you
> can still have the same 'struct file' being available to
> multiple processes.
> 
Could you please suggest the solution?
My intention was to prevent more than one process access the same device.

>          Arnd


Thanks
Dragan