linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: fix posix ACL hooks

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:	Mon, 3 Feb 2014 21:39:26 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>,
	Sage Weil <sage@...tank.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Guangliang Zhao <lucienchao@...il.com>,
	Li Wang <li.wang@...ntykylin.com>, zheng.z.yan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: fix posix ACL hooks

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 01:31:19PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> If the protocol is path-based (and it happens, and it's actually the
> *correct* thing to do for a network filesystem, rather than the
> idiotic "file handle" crap that tries to emulate the unix inode
> semantics in the protocol), then the inode is simply not sufficient.
> 
> And no, d_find_alias() is not correct or sufficient either. It can
> work in practice (and probably does perfectly fine 99.9% of the time),
> but it can equally well give the *wrong* dentry: yes, the dentry it
> returns would have been a valid dentry for somebody at some time, but
> it might be a stale dentry *now*, and it might be the wrong dentry for
> the current user (because the current user may not have permissions to
> that particular path, even if the user has permissions through his
> *own* path).
> 
> So I really think you're *fundamentally* incorrect when you say
> "result *is* a function of inode alone".

Which fs are you talking about?  For 9P it *is* a function of inode alone.
For CIFS there's no wrong dentry to pick - it doesn't have links to start
with.

If we really have hardlinks, the result of permission check would better
be a function of inode itself - as in, "if it gives different results
for two pathnames reachable for the same user, we have a bug".
--
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/