On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:32 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:11:47PM +0300, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:05 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 10:58:09PM -0700, Todd Poynor wrote:
> > > > From: Todd Poynor <toddpoy...@google.com>
> > > >
> > > > Always allow root to open device for writing.
> > > >
> > > > Drop special-casing of ioctl permissions for root vs. owner.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Dmitry Torokhov <d...@chromium.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhongze Hu <fran...@chromium.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Todd Poynor <toddpoy...@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/staging/gasket/apex_driver.c | 9 +++------
> > > > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c | 8 +++++---
> > > > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_ioctl.c | 15 ++++++---------
> > > > 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gasket/apex_driver.c
> > > > b/drivers/staging/gasket/apex_driver.c
> > > > index b1318482ba65..ffe11d8168ea 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/gasket/apex_driver.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/gasket/apex_driver.c
> > > > @@ -644,13 +644,10 @@ static bool is_gcb_in_reset(struct gasket_dev
> > > > *gasket_dev)
> > > > static uint apex_ioctl_check_permissions(struct file *filp, uint cmd)
> > > > {
> > > > struct gasket_dev *gasket_dev = filp->private_data;
> > > > - int root = capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
> > > > - int is_owner = gasket_dev->dev_info.ownership.is_owned &&
> > > > - current->tgid ==
> > > > gasket_dev->dev_info.ownership.owner;
> > > > + fmode_t write;
> > > >
> > > > - if (root || is_owner)
> > > > - return 1;
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > + write = filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE;
> > >
> > > Ok, this is insane. You don't change, or check, the permissions on a
> > > file handle while it is already open, as you only check the permissions
> > > on OPEN, not on WRITE. See the recent rant from Linus on the linux-api
> > > list for yet-another-long-threaad in which he explains this.
> > >
> > > So this whole ioctl can just be removed, it is totally crazy and wrong
> > > and should just be removed.
> >
> > No, the code checks whether the requested ioctl command is compatible
> > with the mode the file handle was open with. There are some ioctls
> > that are allowed on file handle opened for read and others that
> > require file handle to be opened for write. That is all. It does not
> > change permissions past open.
>
> That's really not obvious here :)
>
> And is odd on a whole other set of "crazy design", but ok, let's let it
> live for now.
Are you talking about ioctl still or something else? Because such
ioctl handling is quite common, take a look at blkdev for example,
where disacrd ioctl is only allowed when device is open for writing.
>
> I can't wait for people to just realize this whole "new" subsystem can
> be replaced with UIO, but that's a topic for a different thread...
Yes, that is true and that is why I am not sure why we are going
through all this staging exercise.
As far as I understand we'd still need to have quite a bit of kernel
code so that we can safely program DMA controller (it does not look
like uio_dmem_genirq.c is sufficient as is for gasket needs), but that
should be solvable.
Thanks,
Dmitry
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
