linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix user.* xattr permission check for sticky dirs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200611030938.58873.agruen@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:38:58 +0100
From:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
To:	Timothy Shimmin <tes@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gerard Neil <xyzzy@...ferret.org>,
	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix user.* xattr permission check for sticky dirs

On Friday 03 November 2006 05:57, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
> > so this added the check to the xfs_getxattr() path by accident:
> >
> > []	if (!S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) &&
> > []	    (!S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || inode->i_mode & S_ISVTX))
> > []		return -EPERM;
>
> Now, I'm a bit confused.
> xfs_getxattr?
> I see the "correct" version of the test in xfs_attr.c/attr_user_capable().

I meant to say fs/xattr.c:vfs_getxattr() and fs/xattr.c:vfs_setxattr(), sorry. 
The xfs code is fine, it just contains the same check once again in 
fs/xfs/xfs_attr.c:attr_user_capable().

Thanks,
Andreas
-
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/