linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH =-v3 11/21] fanotify: give a special access permission check

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]

Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:53:25 -0500
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, malware-list@...ts.printk.net,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	arjan@...radead.org, greg@...ah.com, tytso@....edu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH =-v3 11/21] fanotify: give a special access permission
	check

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:11:24AM -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
>  	fsnotify_open_exec(file);
> +	error = fanotify(file, FAN_ACCESS_EXEC_PERM);
> +	if (error) {
> +		fput(file);
> +		goto out;
> +	}

Adding your own fanotify calls next to the fsnotify calls completely
defeats th purpose of these.  Please make sure we have one set of hooks.
And given that we now have three notification schemes I think it's
getting time that you also unifify the actuall backends (buffering, etc)
instead of faning out at the fsnotify layer and just leave dnotify and
inotify as tiny userspace interface layers.

--
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/