linux-kernel - Re: [patch 05/14] hpfs: dont call permission()

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080523092002.GC27119@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 23 May 2008 05:20:02 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Subject: Re: [patch 05/14] hpfs: dont call permission()

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 07:15:03PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> 
> hpfs_unlink() calls permission() prior to truncating the file.  HPFS
> doesn't define a .permission method, so replace with explicit call to
> generic_permission().
> 
> This is equivalent, except that devcgroup_inode_permission() and
> security_inode_permission() are not called.
> 
> The truncation is just an implementation detail of the unlink, so
> these security checks are unnecessary.
> 
> I suspect that even calling generic_permission() is unnecessary, since
> we shouldn't mind if the file isn't writable.  But I leave that to the
> maintainer to decide.

Okay to me but rather pointless.  And I agree to the last stance that
the whole logic in hpfs_unlink really needs sorting out by someone who
understands that filesystem.

--
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/