Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:48:58 +0100 | From | Paolo Bonzini <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO command whitelist (CVE-2012-4542) |
| |
Il 13/02/2013 16:35, Douglas Gilbert ha scritto: >> >> Ping? I'm not even sure what tree this should host these patches... > > You are whitelisting SCSI commands so obviously the SCSI tree > and the patch spills over into the block tree.
Yeah, an Acked-by is in order but it's not clear from whom and for whom.
> Can't see much point in ack-ing the sg changes since most > of the action is at higher levels. > > The question I have is what existing code will this change > break (and will I being getting emails from peeved > developers)?
An unlikely situation is that a vendor-specific command in the "low" range (i.e. not 0xc0..0xff) conflicted with an MMC command, so it happened to be enabled. That will now break, but only if executed without CAP_SYS_RAWIO.
Nothing will change for programs executed with CAP_SYS_RAWIO.
I have not disabled any standards-defined command that used to be enabled, and on the contrary I enabled a few of them, so this could potentially lead to less emails from peeved developers, too.
> Is 8 lines of documentation changes enough? My guess is > that SG_IO ioctl pass-through users will be tripped up > and it won't be obvious to them to look at > Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt > for enlightenment; especially if they are using a char > device node from the bsg, sg or st drivers to issue SG_IO.
The command whitelist was not documented before. It's quite likely that any documentation except the code itself would not be updated the next time the whitelist is touched.
Paolo
|  |