linux-kernel - Re: [patch 5/5] VFS: allow filesystem to override mknod capability checks

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:	Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:18:33 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	hch@...radead.org
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] VFS: allow filesystem to override mknod capability checks

> > Take this example: I've loopback mounted an UML disk image using fuse
> > (no privileges required), and want to create some device nodes.  I
> > can't yet boot the UML because the device node is missing from the
> > image.  So what should I do.  Currently I have to manipulate the
> > mounted image as root.  But that's really shouldn't be needed.
> 
> That's something that shouldn't be solved in the filesystem, but rather
> through exact semantics of unprivilegued mounts.  Given that an
> unprivilegued implies ignoring the device files we can easily allow
> users to create them, because they're nothing special anymore.

Exacly.  And we already have an API for that: mknod(2).  It would be
quite stupid to introduce _another_ API to do the same.  It would mean
that all the tools, like mknod(8) would not work with the new API.

Or am I misunderstanding your suggestion?

Miklos
-
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/