ANDROID: binder: prevent transactions into own process.
PATCH v2 1/1 ANDROID: binder: prevent transactions into own process.
This can't happen with normal nodes (because you can't get a ref to a node you own), but it could happen with the context manager; to make the behavior consistent with regular nodes, reject transactions into the context manager by the process owning it.
--- drivers/android/binder.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
drivers/android/binder.c +8 -0
@@ -2839,6 +2839,14 @@ static void binder_transaction(struct binder_proc *proc,else return_error =BR_DEAD_REPLY ;mutex_unlock (&context->context_mgr_node_lock); +if (target_node && target_proc == proc) { +binder_user_error ("%d:%d got transaction to context manager from process owning it\n" , + proc->pid, thread->pid); + return_error =BR_FAILED_REPLY ; + return_error_param = -EINVAL ; + return_error_line = __LINE__; + goto err_invalid_target_handle; + } }if (!target_node) {/*
Signature · 6 lines
2.17.0.rc1.321.gba9d0f2565-goog _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Greg KH
maintainerQuoted 10 lines · Martijn Coenen
This can't happen with normal nodes (because you can't get a ref to a node you own), but it could happen with the context manager; to make the behavior consistent with regular nodes, reject transactions into the context manager by the process owning it.
Reported-by [email protected]Signed-off-by Martijn Coenen <[email protected]>--- drivers/android/binder.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
What is different from "v2" you sent before this? No change information from v1?
I'm totally confused as to which is the "latest" patch here :(
thanks,
greg k-h-
Quoted 2 lines · Greg KH
What is different from "v2" you sent before this? No change information from v1?
Sorry I messed this up - the first resend did not have "v2" in the subject but did contain v2 change information, the second resend had the v2 subject and did not contain the change information :( Either of the last two patches is fine - it just used "target_proc" instead of "target_node->proc".
Quoted 6 lines
I'm totally confused as to which is the "latest" patch here :(
thanks,
greg k-h-
Quoted 3 lines · Martijn Coenen
Quoted 2 lines · Greg KH
What is different from "v2" you sent before this? No change information from v1?
Greg, is this in your queue, or should I just send a v3 to clean this up? See below for my original reply.
Thanks,
Martijn
Quoted 13 lines
Sorry I messed this up - the first resend did not have "v2" in the subject but did contain v2 change information, the second resend had the v2 subject and did not contain the change information :( Either of the last two patches is fine - it just used "
target_proc" instead of "target_node->proc".Quoted 6 lines
I'm totally confused as to which is the "latest" patch here :(
thanks,
greg k-h-
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Greg KH
maintainerQuoted 7 lines · Martijn Coenen
Quoted 3 lines · Martijn Coenen
Quoted 2 lines · Greg KH
What is different from "v2" you sent before this? No change information from v1?
Greg, is this in your queue, or should I just send a v3 to clean this up? See below for my original reply.
It's in my queue, I couldn't do anything during the merge window and I was gone all last week, so am catching up on stuff now. Should get to it by the end of this week, sorry for the delay.
thanks,
greg k-h