[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070604131242.GE1971@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:12:42 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
Cc: jjohansen@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 38/45] AppArmor: Module and LSM hooks
Hi!
> > > You very well know that the vfs has a limit of PATH_MAX characters (4096)
> > > for pathnames. This means that at most that many characters can be passed
> > > at once.
>
> What users can do is something like this:
>
> chdir("some/long/path");
> chdir("some/even/longer/path");
> ...
>
> and the total length of the path can then exceed PATH_MAX characters. We can
> only accept pathnames up to some upper limit, and we need to somehow define
> what that limit is supposed to be. We could use PATH_MAX or some other
> arbitrary number. In most situations PATH_MAX will be fine, but that's not
> always guaranteed to be the case. So what's wrong about making this
> configurable for special situations that we might run into? Module parameters
> are *really* dead cheap.
Parameters are cheap, but this one is ugly.
How will kernel work with very long paths? I'd suspect some problems,
if path is 1MB long and I attempt to print it in /proc
somewhere. Perhaps vfs should be modified not to allow such crazy
paths? But placing limit in aa is ugly.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists