On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 05:49:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> a) have caused open() on that device node, even though caller did
> not ask for that and actually had not planned to do anything with actual
> device.
> b) have caused all subsequent permission() for MAY_WRITE fail for
> that sucker [*] until somebody opens and closes device in question (for
> read, obviously).
Actually, that is correct only if that somebody gets the same task_struct
as deceased caller of utime()/whatever had triggered call of permission().
Due to (c) below...
> c) seclvl_bd_release() expects, for some reason, to be called when
> task that had called seclvl_bd_claim() to be still alive. Use of current
> in setting/checking ->i_security is a bad joke.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
