Hi Ernesto, On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 18:07 +0100, ext Ramos Falcon, Ernesto wrote: > From 07b9f6d30c9d363ba0c4cefded8068662e1048c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Ernesto Ramos <erne...@ti.com> > Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:43:31 -0600 > Subject: [PATCH] DSPBRIDGE: Validate Processor Handle from user. > > Add check to validate the Processor handle received > from user. > > Signed-off-by: Ernesto Ramos <erne...@ti.com> > --- > drivers/dsp/bridge/pmgr/wcd.c | 86 ++++++++++++- > drivers/dsp/bridge/rmgr/proc.c | 280 > ++++++++++++++-------------------------- > 2 files changed, 179 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-)
My understanding: In bridge_open() we allocate a new process_context and store it in filp->private_data which can't be modified / tampered by user space. If this understanding is correct, then why we need to perform any validation on data hold be process_context pointer stored in flip->private_data? If you don't trust hProcessor handle received from user space arguments then instead of using that we can just use pCtxt->hProcessor! I don't understand why we need validation so NACK from my side. Cheers, Ameya. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
