Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:34:18 +0200 | From | "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Some fixes for compat ioctl |
| |
Hi, Andi!
Quoting r. Andi Kleen (ak@muc.de) "[PATCH] Some fixes for compat ioctl": > > While doing some compat_ioctl conversions I noticed a few issues > in compat_sys_ioctl: > > - It is not completely compatible to old ->ioctl because > the traditional common ioctls are not checked before it.
How is this different from what we have for compat_sys_ioctl in 2.6.10? Or is this an old bug?
> I added > a check for those.
Cant we just add them to fs/compat_ioctl.c instead, and be done?
> The main advantage is that the handler > now works the same as a traditional handler even when it returns > -EINVAL
We still need the conversion functions in fs/compat_ioctl.c, I think. If that is true, for some devices the handler only almost works if it returns -EINVAL, and maybe its best not to encourage this. I have another idea: maybe, lets move the unlocked_ioctl handler up so that it, too, is required to return -NOIOCTLCMD? I would argue it also may improve ioctl performance by a small margin, since it is the unlocked_ioctl/compat_ioctl that do the "real" work.
I plan to send, separately, a patch that does this. Please comment.
> > - The private socket ioctl check should only apply for sockets.
Its an old issue, isnt it? And probably better split in a separate patch?
> - There was a security hook missing. Drawback is that it uses > the same hook now, and the LSM module cannot distingush between > 32bit and 64bit clients. But it'll have to live with that for now.
It seems it is still missing for compat_ioctl. No? I am sending a patch to fix this separately.
MST - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |