On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:49:23PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 01:17:16PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > For both pidfd and seccomp, the __user pointer is not used. Update
> > __receive_fd() to make writing to ufd optional via a NULL check. However,
> > for the receive_fd
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 01:17:16PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> For both pidfd and seccomp, the __user pointer is not used. Update
> __receive_fd() to make writing to ufd optional via a NULL check. However,
> for the receive_fd_user() wrapper, ufd is NULL checked so an -EFAULT
> can be returned to avo
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 01:17:16PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> For both pidfd and seccomp, the __user pointer is not used. Update
> __receive_fd() to make writing to ufd optional via a NULL check. However,
> for the receive_fd_user() wrapper, ufd is NULL checked so an -EFAULT
> can be returned to avo
For both pidfd and seccomp, the __user pointer is not used. Update
__receive_fd() to make writing to ufd optional via a NULL check. However,
for the receive_fd_user() wrapper, ufd is NULL checked so an -EFAULT
can be returned to avoid changing the SCM_RIGHTS interface behavior. Add
new wrapper rece
