| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071026203337.GF8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists