On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:35:55 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Alan Cox wrote: > > I am concerned primarily about the lack of ability to get rid of such a > > handle in a controlled fashion. The udev/device unload case is simply one > > obvious way to exploit it. > > I don't understand your concern. Can you please ellaborate on the way > to exploit O_NODE? You end up with a handle to an object which then changes meaning if a device is unloaded and something else loaded (or consider a pty recreation) In the normal udev course of things this is ok because even without revoke udev can just about get away with it for the sole reason it knows that the handle cannot be open in any form during the driver unload (because of the device refcounting). You seem to break that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
