linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [trivial] fs/vfat: add *.cmd to filenames listed as executable by mount option "showexec"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:34:03 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	Roland Eggner <edvx1@...temanalysen.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [trivial] fs/vfat: add *.cmd to filenames listed as executable by mount option "showexec"

Roland Eggner <edvx1@...temanalysen.net> writes:

> On 2012-02-03 Fr 16:41:16 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>> Roland Eggner <edvx1@...temanalysen.net> writes:
>> 
>> > The mount option "showexec" provides a somewhat more native view of vfat
>> > filesystems: only filenames *.exe *.com *.bat are listed as
>> > executable, rather
>> > than all files.  This patch adds filenames *.cmd to those listed
>> > as executable.
>> > *.cmd are usually scripts associated with the shell "cmd.exe",
>> > which has been
>> > the default shell in several OS versions of its vendor.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Roland Eggner <edvx1@...temanalysen.net>
>> > ---
>> 
>> Hm, this may be good for someone, but this may not be for someone. So,
>> this probably should be option if someone really care it.
>> 
>> I'm not thinking about how though...
>> 
> Think of VM images of recent versions of the FAT originating OS:  currently
> "showexec" will miss roughly half of the files, for which it is intended for.
> IMHO this patch provides a very cheap completion of a feature of the vfat kernel
> module.  Cheap in terms of only 9 characters additional source code.
>
> If you really see an advantage in the current, incomplete state of the
> "showexec" feature, compared to the proposed, completed state:  please elaborate
> your objection.

You would be happy with adding "cmd", and may think enough. But Someone
is not happy with it. And someone want to add "sh", "py", and "pl".

If I have to tackle it, why I have to make happy only your state? I'm
not saying current has advantage, I'm saying your patch doesn't make
guys happy like current one. It is just moving a place of happiness from
a group to an another group, right?

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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/