linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add O_DENY* flags to fcntl and cifs

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, 7 Dec 2012 08:29:39 -0600
From:	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
To:	Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add O_DENY* flags to fcntl and cifs

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:49:49PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Thu,  6 Dec 2012 22:26:28 +0400
>> Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru> wrote:
>>
>> > Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this change is ok for network filesystems, itsn't not targeted for local filesystems due security problems (e.g. when a user process can deny root to delete a file).
>>
>> If I have my root fs on NFS then the same applies does it not.
>>
>> Your patches fail to describe the security semantics and what file rights
>> I must have to apply each option. How do I track down a lock user, what
>> tools are provided ? How do the new options interact with the security
>> layer?
>>
>> I don't have a problem with the idea, but it needs a lot more clear
>> description of how it works so the model can be checked and if need be
>> things tweaked (eg needing write to denywrite etc)
>
> And this is where things get really ugly of course :-).
>
> For the CIFSFS client they're expecting to be able to
> just ship them to a Windows server, where they'll
> get the (insane) Windows semantics. These semantics
> are not what would be wanted on a local filesystem.
>
> So unless we just say "these things have Windows
> semantics" (where openers of files can lock out others

I suspect that WINE would have the same need
to ship them to an NFS server as to a Windows server,
and the NFS4 protocol specification also defines these,
although I could not find the same level of detail that MS-FSA
provides (e.g. see section 2.14.10 for the detailed
description of how lock conflicts are checked) but the
semantics are probably the same.

-- 
Thanks,

Steve
--
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/