On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Pavel Roskin <proski@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> OMG this +1 -1 stuff is nuts...
Ping, Al.
int iterate_fd(struct files_struct *files, unsigned n,
[snip]
while (!res && n < fdt->max_fds) {
file = rcu_dereference_check_fdtable(files, fdt->fd[n++]);
if (file)
res = f(p, file, n);
}
spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
return res;
So we increment n (the file descriptor number) in the dereference,
then pass that (wrong) number to f().
Every single f() (including SELinux, the cause of this bug) returns
fd+1 (so now we are up by 2). Then all of the users of iterate fd
actually use fd-1 (which is wrong)
Why not have iterate_fd return -ENOENT on no entries and stop all of
the stupid games? We fix the real bug (the above function should do
the n++ after the f() call, and the interface is sane to design
against...
-Eric
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
