linux-kernel - Re: [patch] smack: remove unnecessary xattr checks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <E1KDwno-0007QD-7d@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:30:56 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	casey@...aufler-ca.com
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] smack: remove unnecessary xattr checks

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> I tried your patch without looking at it and found that
> getxattr is too permissive with your changes. I found that
> 
>    % ls -l foo
> 
> will fail while
> 
>    % attr -S -g SMACK64 foo
> 
> will succeed. Of course if stat() fails due to a Smack
> access check getxattr() ought to as well. So it would
> appear that the call to security_inode_permission is not
> sufficient.

Hmm, I missed the fact that security_inode_permission() is only called
for xattrs not in the speclial (security.*, system.*, trusted.*)
namespaces.  So yes the patch is incorrect.

Thanks,
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/