Prev: [PATCH 2/2] blackfin: use ->mmap_sem to protect mm_context_t->sram_list
Next: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, cpufeature: Unbreak compile with gcc 3.x
From: H. Peter Anvin on 27 May 2010 16:10
On 05/27/2010 08:36 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Not sure about this patch. The kernel/libc part is correct, but
> since user-space declares "int personality(unsigned long persona)"
> the current behaviour can confuse the (poor written) applications
> even on 64-bit machines.
>
> Consider:
>
> personality(0xffffffff - 1); // == (int)-2
>
> ...
>
> int ret = personality(0); // returns the old personality
> if (ret < 0)
> oops_we_cant_set_PER_LINUX(errno);
>
> And, since libc correctly detects the successful return from syscall,
> errno is random.
>
> Change sys_personality() to ensure personality can not look like a
> negative int. This disallows the MSB, it is not used for PER_ flags.
>
> Suggested-by: Wenming Zhang <wezhang(a)redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg(a)redhat.com>

I'm fine with this, even though it is indeed there to support extremely
poorly written applications (error is specifially -1, not < 0).

However, since we almost certainly have enough brokenness in here, and
since there definitely don't seem to be a whole lot of demand for new
personality bits, I'm more than happy to waste bit 31 at not having to
deal with it, ever.

However, it would be better if we returned -EINVAL on attempts to set
*any* of the reserved bits, not just bit 31.

-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Oleg Nesterov on 28 May 2010 15:10
On 05/27, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> On 05/27/2010 08:36 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Change sys_personality() to ensure personality can not look like a
> > negative int. This disallows the MSB, it is not used for PER_ flags.
> >
> I'm fine with this, even though it is indeed there to support extremely
> poorly written applications (error is specifially -1, not < 0).

Completely agreed. I never liked this patch, just tried to discuss this
"problem" and report either ACK or NACK back to bugzilla.

Now I dislike it even more. I am not going to resend it, but I added
the fat note to the patch-v2 I am sending.

> However, since we almost certainly have enough brokenness in here, and
> since there definitely don't seem to be a whole lot of demand for new
> personality bits, I'm more than happy to waste bit 31 at not having to
> deal with it, ever.
>
> However, it would be better if we returned -EINVAL on attempts to set
> *any* of the reserved bits, not just bit 31.

If only I knew what is the supposed behaviour of sys_personality ;)

Another reason to forget this patch but add the "right" check if needed.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [PATCH 2/2] blackfin: use ->mmap_sem to protect mm_context_t->sram_list
Next: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, cpufeature: Unbreak compile with gcc 3.x