[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7e0fb38c0907011229h328c8c48i55df5e234b7d367d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 15:29:31 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Eugene Teo <eteo@...hat.com>,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch] allow file truncations when both suid and write
permissions set
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Eric Sandeen<sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Amerigo Wang wrote:
>>> When suid is set and the non-owner user has write permission,
>>> any writing into this file should be allowed and suid should be
>>> removed after that.
>>>
>>> However, current kernel only allows writing without truncations,
>>> when we do truncations on that file, we get EPERM. This is a bug.
>
> ...
>
>> So I think the main problem here is simply that we didn't set
>> ATTR_FORCE, right...
>>
>> Seems a little odd to |= with ret, -then- check if it's non-0. Maybe:
>>
>> /* Remove suid/sgid on truncate too */
>> - newattrs.ia_valid |= should_remove_suid(dentry);
>> + ret = should_remove_suid(dentry);
>> + if (ret)
>> + newattrs.ia_valid |= (ret | ATTR_FORCE);
>>
>
> On second thought, and after talking w/ eparis, I think this probably
> needs a security_inode_killpriv() too... it seems like it might be best
> to change file_remove_suid(*file) to dentry_remove_suid(*dentry) and
> just call that from do_truncate()?
>
> -Eric
All of this stuff seems horribly complex.... I'm trying to wrap my
head around everything going on here as well....
-Eric (Paris)
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists