linux-kernel - Re: [AppArmor 19/45] Add struct vfsmount parameters to vfs

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, 26 Oct 2007 21:33:37 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	John Johansen <jjohansen@...e.de>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Tony Jones <tonyj@...e.de>,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 19/45] Add struct vfsmount parameters to vfs_rename()

On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:23:53AM -0700, John Johansen wrote:

> In the current code, both vfsmounts are always identical, and so one of
> the two should go, agreed.
> 
> The thought behind passing both vfsmounts was that they could differ but
> point to the same super_block, in which case renames would still be
> possible at least from a filesystem point of view. The essential
> restriction here is that both files must be on the same device; the vfs
> restriction of not allowing cross-mount renames is arbitrary.

It's called "access control".  Pathname-based one, BTW.  And yes, it's
100% deliberate.

> Cross-mount renames are not allowed currently, and granted, they may not
> be very useful, either.

<raised brows>
Excuse me, but IIRC LSM was supposed to _add_ restrictions, not to remove
existing security checks.
-
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/