linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] open: introduce O

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: <4A97D5E8.8010906@byu.net>
Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:04:40 -0600
From:	Eric Blake <ebb9@....net>
To:	Florian Weimer <fweimer@....de>
CC:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	bug-coreutils@....org, bug-gnulib@....org,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] open: introduce O_NOSTD

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Florian Weimer on 8/28/2009 6:52 AM:
> * Eric Blake:
> 
>> Your version fails to clear the cloexec bit of the final fd if the
>> original caller didn't request O_CLOEXEC.
> 
> Okay, but you can fix that in a race-free manner (but I thought that
> this was implied by open_safer).

The current semantics of gnulib's open_safer is that the result is
guaranteed to be 3 or larger.  It would require an audit of all gnulib
clients of the open_safer method to see whether it also makes sense to
change the semantics of open_safer to also guarantee that fds start life
with the cloexec bit set.  But maybe that is a change worth making in
gnulib, with applications intending to give an fd to a child process being
required to explicitly clear the cloexec bit.

>> Also, your suggestion has a definite race in that you are calling
>> open() multiple times rather than cloning an existing fd after the
>> first open(), such that another process could alter which file is
>> visited between your first and last open().
> 
> Sure, but this is an unobservable differen.ce

It is absolutely observable - if the user passed O_CREAT|O_EXCL as part of
their flags, then the second open() will inappropriately fail.

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9@....net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkqX1egACgkQ84KuGfSFAYDKWACeMM4spqCsmgVVwME9+C/1tdpU
g7wAnR9FetGPGr7acXLfLIVvzYZ7tpz3
=VjUY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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/