linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Correct behavior for listxattr and 'trusted' xattrs

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:48:48 +0100
From:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
To:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Joel Becker <joel.becker@...cle.com>,
	Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>, Alex Elder <aelder@....com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	a.gruenbacher@...puter.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Correct behavior for listxattr and 'trusted' xattrs

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 14:02:58 Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Should it be using has_capability_noaudit() rather than capable() so
> that merely calling listxattr() on a file that happens to have trusted
> xattrs does not set PF_SUPERPRIV on the task and does not trigger an
> audit message?

Yes, makes sense.  A version of has_capability_noaudit() without an explicit 
task parameter, like security_capable(), would be better still.

Thanks,
Andreas
--
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/