Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262026AbVATBrO (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:47:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262024AbVATBrO (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:47:14 -0500 Received: from mail.mellanox.co.il ([194.90.237.34]:22614 "EHLO mtlex01.yok.mtl.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262026AbVATBqX (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:46:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:42:56 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Chris Wright Cc: Andi Kleen , akpm@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook Message-ID: <20050120014256.GC32321@mellanox.co.il> Reply-To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" References: <20050118072133.GB76018@muc.de> <20050118103418.GA23099@mellanox.co.il> <20050118072133.GB76018@muc.de> <20050118104515.GA23127@mellanox.co.il> <20050118112220.X24171@build.pdx.osdl.net> <20050120002806.GA16674@mellanox.co.il> <20050119164353.W24171@build.pdx.osdl.net> <20050120010620.GB32105@mellanox.co.il> <20050119171655.C24171@build.pdx.osdl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050119171655.C24171@build.pdx.osdl.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1196 Lines: 28 Quoting r. Chris Wright (chrisw@osdl.org) > > > > I'm all for it, but the way the patch below works, we could end up > > > > calling ->ioctl or ->unlocked_ioctl from the compat > > > > syscall, and we dont want that. > > > > > > Hmm, I didn't actually change how those are called. So if it's an issue, > > > then I don't think this patch introduces it. > > > > Sorry, you are right, we go to do_ioctl only if there are no > > callbacks. > > I suppose there is one case (not introduced by the patch). Not sure if > it's even a problem though: > > t->cmd matches, yet NULL t->handler. This will fall-thru to > the do_ioctl: case. I assume NULL handler is for case where no > conversion is needed, so it's not a problem? At least some callers of > register_ioctl32_conversion() pass NULL handler. Yes, this is an by design, you put in a NULL handler to say: I dont need conversions, call my regular handlers. Some in-tree drivers do this. 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/