linux-kernel - [PATCH] error out if signing was requested, but can't be fulfilled

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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/