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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:42:54 -0400 From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> To: linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] error out if signing was requested, but can't be fulfilled Currently, if mount with a signing-enabled sec= option (e.g. sec=ntlmi), the kernel does a warning printk if the server doesn't support signing, and then proceeds without signatures. This is probably OK for people that think to look at the ring buffer, but seems wrong to me. If someone explicitly requests signing, we should error out if that request can't be satisfied. They can then reattempt the mount without signing if that's ok. Is there any reason not to do something like the following patch? Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c index 4a2458e..c9cae48 100644 --- a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c +++ b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c @@ -650,6 +650,7 @@ signing_check: (SECMODE_SIGN_ENABLED | SECMODE_SIGN_REQUIRED)) == 0) { cERROR(1, ("signing required but server lacks support")); + rc = -EOPNOTSUPP; } else server->secMode |= SECMODE_SIGN_REQUIRED; } else { - 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