linux-kernel - Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports

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, 22 Jan 2007 11:19:43 -0700
From:	dann frazier <dannf@...nf.org>
To:	Grant Coady <gcoady.lk@...il.com>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@...ian.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org
Subject: Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports

On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:50:47AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:03:21 +0100, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> grant@...pro:/home/other$ uname -r
> 2.4.34b
> grant@...pro:/home/other$ mkdir test
> grant@...pro:/home/other$ ln -s test testlink
> ln: creating symbolic link `testlink' to `test': Operation not permitted
> grant@...pro:/home/other$ echo "this is also a test" > test/file
> grant@...pro:/home/other$ ln -s test/file test2
> ln: creating symbolic link `test2' to `test/file': Operation not permitted
> 
> trying to create symlinks.
> 
> No problems creating symlinks with 2.4.33.3.

Yes, I've found that this varies depending upon the options passed. If
uid=0, I can create symlinks, otherwise I always get permission
denied. This behavior appears to be consistent with 2.6.

I also need to do some testing with the proposed patch to smbmount
that will let you omit options (current versions will always pass an
option to the kernel, even if you the user did not provide one).
If you do not pass options, the behavior should fallback to
server-provided values.

Note that this bug has been my only interaction with smbfs, so I'm
certainly no expert on how it *should* behave. My plan is to
take all of the use cases we're coming up with and try to maintain
the "historic" 2.4 behavior as much as possible, but still not
silently dropping user-provided mount options. When the behavior needs
to change to honor them, I'll try to match what current 2.6
does. Make sense?

-- 
dann frazier

-
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/