linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] utime(s): Honour CAP

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707170517110.2005@cselinux1.cse.iitk.ac.in>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:20:45 +0530 (IST)
From:	Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@....iitk.ac.in>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] utime(s): Honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 03:24:14AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Anwyay, so I'm thinking of adding:
> > > 
> > > struct inode;
> > > 
> > > int is_not_owner(struct inode *)
> > 
> >   ^static inline                 ^inode
> > 
> > of course.
>  
> > > {
> > > 	return ((current->fsuid != inode->i_uid) && !capable(CAP_FOWNER));
> > > }
> 
> This is pointless.  If you do not have definition of struct inode
> already available, you'll get breakage on access to ->i_uid.

Yes, I realized that later :-) That was just a (dumb) sketch typed
into the mailer ... I'll send out the conversion patch after compiling
+ booting, of course.

Thanks,
Satyam
-
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/