linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0607280636180.11711@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Date:	Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:40:52 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...Helsinki.FI>
To:	"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@....utfsm.cl>
cc:	Petr Baudis <pasky@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, tytso@....edu,
	tigran@...itas.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Doesn't that violate a POSIX guarantee that the lowest unused fd is
> returned? If the leakage lasts "long enough", this gives an opportunity of
> a nice DoS by using up fds...

The fd is not unused, its revoked. To clarify, the potential DoS is 
inherit for revoke, but since only root or the file owner can revoke a 
file, I don't see that as a big problem in practice. The caller is 
expected to ensure that no one can reopen the file anyway.

				Pekka
-
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/