Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Check O_* flags set with fcntl() on anon_inode files.

[Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 07:57:28PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 09:26:35AM -0800, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > > > [PATCH 1/4] signalfd
> > > > [PATCH 2/4] timerfd
> > > > [PATCH 3/4] epoll
> > > > [PATCH 4/4] eventfd
> > > > 
> > > > I did not check the perf, kvm-vm, or kvm-vcpu uses of anon_inodes.
> > > 
> > > Er...  O_ASYNC is silently ignored for regular files as well, so any
> > > userland code that tries to rely on fcntl() rejecting it is and always
> > > had been badly b0rken.
> > 
> > Of course. Did you mean to imply that the kernel shouldn't bother to
> > reject these, or were you merely making an observation?
> 
> I'm wondering why should we start changing that behaviour and what makes
> these 4 cases special?

I'm not saying we should change behavior for regular files. We should check
these because they're already being checked inside the special syscalls that
open these files. Without these patches fcntl(F_SETFL) is a way around those
checks for these interfaces.

Cheers,
	-Matt Helsley