linux-kernel - Re: r-o bind in nfsd

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: <E1Jck2N-0001Q3-7W@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:24:11 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, haveblue@...ibm.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	neilb@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: r-o bind in nfsd

> > I know there are a few cases, where filesystems call vfs_foo()
> > internally, where the vfsmount isn't available, but I think the proper
> > solution is just to fix those places, and not recurse back into the
> > VFS (which is AFAICS in all those cases totally unnecessary anyway).
> > This would make everybody happy, no?
> 
> Apparmor can go play with itself.  The proper fix is to lift the LSM nonsense
> into callers and leave vfs_...() alone;

Maybe.  I know precious little about this security thing, so I won't
argue about it's merits or faults.  But:

 a) I have a hunch that the security guys wouldn't like to see the
 order between permission() and security_foo() changed.

 b) I fail to see how moving functionality to callers would improve
 things

> vfsmounts should *not* be passed there at all, with the exception of
> vfs_follow_link() which gets the full nameidata.

Why?

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/