On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 12:15:02PM +0100, Guillaume Chazarain wrote: > Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The whole point is that we have to reject it at read() time, not open() > > time. > > Yes, my patch was a complement to yours to propagate the -EPERM in easy > cases. As you noted it added restrictions on reading /proc/*/maps, even > though I found them acceptable. > > How about this instead? > > Maybe you'd prefer to propagate the actual -EPERM from > __ptrace_may_attach but that would be more invasive. > > Sidenote: do you think a sparse annotation to check IS_ERR/PTR_ERR > usage would make sense? > > proc: return -EPERM when preventing read of /proc/*/maps > > Return an error instead of successfully reading an empty file.
You are overcomplicating it - if ->start() returns ERR_PTR(), it's over; read() will fail with that error and that's it. No need to mess with ->next(), etc. - it'll never see that ERR_PTR(-EPERM). Drop these chunks and you've got an ACK... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
