Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-19 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-19 Thread Chris Wright
* 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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-19 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
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 ->

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-19 Thread Chris Wright
* 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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-19 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-19 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-19 Thread Chris Wright
* 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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-19 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-19 Thread Chris Wright
* 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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-19 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-18 Thread Chris Wright
* 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 > @@

[PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-18 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
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

[PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-18 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] compat_ioctl call seems to miss a security hook

2005-01-18 Thread Chris Wright
* 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