| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:29:36 +0900 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> CC: fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, greg@...ah.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] FUSE: extend FUSE to support more operations Hello, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Not with '-oallow_other'. Consider the case that the caller invoked a > non well formed ioctl, but since there's no way to know this we > allowed the fuse server to tinker with the caller's address space > _as if_ the ioctl was well formed. Right, allow_other. > So we should always make sure that the server has enough privilege to > read/write the caller's memory, i.e. it can ptrace the caller. > > At this point we could allow any ioctls, not just well formed ones. > But I don't want that for a different reason: if the possibility is > there people will find new "innovative" uses for it and just get > themselves into a big mess. I don't really mind people doing strange things in userland as long as it's safe but you're the maintainer. It's a bit strange to export the feature only for CUSE, so I'm a little bit hesitant. I wanna make it useful for both. So, at the kernel level, only well formed for FUSE and everything goes for CUSE. Does that sound good enough? -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists