| |||||||||||||
Wrong nameWrong namePosted Jan 17, 2008 12:29 UTC (Thu) by ms (subscriber, #41272)In reply to: Wrong name by NAR Parent article: A kernel security hole
No no. The problem is these parameters should not have the same type.
(Log in to post comments)
Wrong name Posted Jan 17, 2008 13:06 UTC (Thu) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link] They could be changed to enumerated types, but that wouldn't automatically help much because conversion between integer and enumerated types is implicit in C. Perhaps sparse would have caught it though.
Wrong name Posted Jan 17, 2008 14:28 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] It could have been made more obvious, and thus more likely to be rapidly spotted, by making sure that FMODE_WRITE and MAY_WRITE had different *values* which overlapped with something quite different in the other flag: but if that had been thought of, this bug would never have happened because people would have been paying extra attention to it anyway.
Wrong name Posted Jan 17, 2008 16:17 UTC (Thu) by tbellman (guest, #49983) [Link] Except that it wouldn't have helped. The buggy code used FMODE_WRITE to check the bit in the variable 'flag'; the correct code uses MAY_WRITE to check the bit in the variable 'acc_mode'. The buggy code did use the correct access mechanisms for the variable it looked at, so no amount of BDSM type control would have helped.
|
|||||||||||||