linux-kernel - Re: [patch 01/15] security: pass path to inode

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: <9d732d950806020831h1b8aeabag9cb6db8e16bac971@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:31:14 +0900
From:	"Toshiharu Harada" <haradats@...il.com>
To:	"Evgeniy Polyakov" <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	"Miklos Szeredi" <miklos@...redi.hu>, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
	sds@...ho.nsa.gov, eparis@...hat.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
	agruen@...e.de, jjohansen@...e.de,
	penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 01/15] security: pass path to inode_create

2008/6/3 Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:55:33PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi (miklos@...redi.hu) wrote:
>> Oh, I've been told.  But valid technical reason given?  No.
>
> This is a really interesting flame, can you proceed,
> we will run for cola and peanuts :)

Let me quote a message by Chris Wright from LSM ml:
"You cannot discover the path used to access an inode without knowing
both the dentry and the vfsmount objects. "

Another one by Stephen Smalley:
"Pathname-based security considered harmful.  You want to control access
to an object, not a name, and the name-to-object mapping is neither
one-to-one nor immutable."

Can you guess when they were posted?
The answer is December 2003. :)
Do we need more time? I don't think so.

I'm viewing Miklos' patches as *enhancements* not only for AppArmor (and
other pathname-based LSM modules). Everyone can make use of
information and lose nothing.  Am I too simple minded?

> For the technical reason: in case of stackable/bind, which path should
> be checked? Whatever answer is, there will always be another party,
> which wants different behaviour.

-- 
Toshiharu Harada
haradats@...il.com
--
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/