Quoting r. Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > > > 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
* Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Quoting r. Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl
> call seems to miss a security hook":
> > * Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I'm all for it, but the way the pat
Quoting r. Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call
seems to miss a security hook":
> * Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I'm all for it, but the way the patch below works, we could end up
> > calling ->ioctl or ->
* Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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
Hello!
Quoting r. Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call
seems to miss a security hook":
> * Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > diff -rup linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c linux-2.6.10-ioctl-sym/fs/compat.c
> > --- linux-2.6.10-orig
Hello!
Quoting r. Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call
seems to miss a security hook:
* Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
diff -rup linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c linux-2.6.10-ioctl-sym/fs/compat.c
--- linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c 2005-01-18 10:58
* Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
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
Quoting r. Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call
seems to miss a security hook:
* Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
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
* Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Quoting r. Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl
call seems to miss a security hook:
* Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm all for it, but the way the patch below works, we could end up
calling -ioctl
Quoting r. Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
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
* Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> diff -rup linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c linux-2.6.10-ioctl-sym/fs/compat.c
> --- linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c 2005-01-18 10:58:33.609880024 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.10-ioctl-sym/fs/compat.c2005-01-18 10:54:26.289478440
> +0200
> @@
Attached patch is against 2.6.11-rc1-bk5
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add a missing security hook for compatibility ioctl.
diff -rup linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c linux-2.6.10-ioctl-sym/fs/compat.c
--- linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c 2005-01-18 10:58:33.609880024
Attached patch is against 2.6.11-rc1-bk5
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add a missing security hook for compatibility ioctl.
diff -rup linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c linux-2.6.10-ioctl-sym/fs/compat.c
--- linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c 2005-01-18 10:58:33.609880024
* Michael S. Tsirkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
diff -rup linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c linux-2.6.10-ioctl-sym/fs/compat.c
--- linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/compat.c 2005-01-18 10:58:33.609880024 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.10-ioctl-sym/fs/compat.c2005-01-18 10:54:26.289478440
+0200
@@ -437,6
14 matches
Mail list logo