linux-kernel - Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches

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: <19585.1249406551@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:22:31 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"malware-list@...sg.printk.net" <malware-list@...sg.printk.net>,
	"greg@...ah.com" <greg@...ah.com>,
	"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Douglas Leeder <douglas.leeder@...hos.com>,
	"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
	"arjan@...radead.org" <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"david@...g.hm" <david@...g.hm>,
	"jengelh@...ozas.de" <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
	"aviro@...hat.com" <aviro@...hat.com>,
	"mrkafk@...il.com" <mrkafk@...il.com>,
	"alexl@...hat.com" <alexl@...hat.com>,
	"jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>,
	"a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
	"alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"mmorley@....in" <mmorley@....in>, "pavel@...e.cz" <pavel@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:27:48 EDT, Eric Paris said:
> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:09 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > Would it make more sense to deny on timeouts and then evict? I am thinking it
> > would be more secure with no significant drawbacks. Also for usages like HSM
> > allowing it without data being in place might present wrong content to the
> > user.
>
> I'd be willing to go that route as long as noone else complains.

Yes, in my world, "deny on timeout and evict" is the better design decision.
For an HSM, you'd rather have a quick-and-ugly death on a failed file open than
an app accidentally reading the HSM's stub data thinking it's the original data.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped