linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2012.1] fs: symlink restrictions on sticky directories

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:	Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:16:06 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Federica Teodori <federica.teodori@...glemail.com>,
	Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lucian.grijincu@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2012.1] fs: symlink restrictions on sticky directories


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:05:20 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Maybe true for a general purpose computer, but someone who 
> > > is making a single-purpose device such as a digital TV or 
> > > a wifi router won't want it.
> > 
> > That's the case for 99% of the features and semantics we 
> > have: by definition a single-purpose device uses only a 
> > small sub-set of an infinite purpose OS, right?
> > 
> > Still we only modularize semantics out if they easily fit 
> > into some existing plug-in/module concept, if the feature is 
> > arguably oddball that a sizable portion of people want to 
> > disable, or if it makes notable sense for size reasons. To 
> > me it looked distinctly silly to complicate things for such 
> > a small piece of code.
> 
> We're talking tens or hundreds of millions of machines for 
> which the patch is a straightforward speed and space 
> regression.  Fixing this needs just a little Kconfig twiddling 
> and a #else clause.  We may as well do it.

No strong objections from me.

> > I doubt Kees would mind modularizing it, but it would be nice to 
> > get VFS maintainer feedback in the:
> > 
> >    { 'you are crazy, over my dead body' ... 'cool, merge it' }
> > 
> > continuous spectrum of possible answers.
> 
> Well yes.  We'll get there.
> 
> Alas, I've become rather slack in my maintainer patchbombing 
> in the past year or two.  It's just boring and depressing to 
> spray patches at maintainers and have 90% or more of them 
> simply ignored. [...]

How about just sending it to Linus after the first ignored patch 
[perhaps marked in a special way, to make Linus aware of the 
out-of-band nature of the patches], instead of buffering them 
indefinitely and increasing your overhead all around?

We'll no doubt regret some of those patches going upstream, but 
that's OK i think, this is an exception mechanism.

> [...] I'm sitting on 45 such patches at present so I suppose I 
> should get off my tail and do a respray.

(If I missed any then let me know.)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/