linux-kernel - Re: debugfs & vfs file permission issue?

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: <20090125213403.GB3600@kroah.com>
Date:	Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:34:03 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Robin Getz <rgetz@...ckfin.uclinux.org>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: debugfs & vfs file permission issue?

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:12:38AM -0500, Robin Getz wrote:
> On Tue 6 Jan 2009 07:05, Robin Getz suggested:
> >
> > adding a readonly, and writeonly, and ensuring that when you call 
> > debugfs_create_*, the mode is checked, and the "correct" fops are set 
> > doesn't seem like it would be a bad idea? This would enforce the
> > kernel programmer's view on the world, and not allow pesky root users
> > to override things....
> > 
> > Greg - would you take something like that?
> 
> How about this?
> 
> Feel free to nak it - we can do the same thing where we are calling the
> debugfs_create_* functions - this just makes it cleaner in my opinion.

I like the patch, but there are no changes to the debugfs.h file, which
I think you need.

Care to resend it with the needed header file changes so that I can
apply it?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/