[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B1A7159.3070101@mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:42:33 -0500
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vfs: new O_NODE open flag
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> You're still missing the point. O_NODE is like a hard link, except
>>> the reference doesn't come from the filesystem but from a file
>>> descriptor. From udev's perspective there's no difference.
>> I don't think I am missing the point here. You have a reference to an
>> object in the fs but you don't have a reference to the driver underneath
>> s the driver can change on you *while* you have the O_NODE open and fd
>> live. That cannot happen with a hard link and open.
>>
>> It isn't the same thing as far as I can see. You don't have the barrier
>> between the operations that occurs in the real open/close case because
>> they lock the driver.
>
> The file descriptor opened with O_NODE allows exaclactly the same
> operations that a hard link to the device would, nothing more. It's
> just a link to the *node*, except it doesn't increment the link count,
> the driver is irrelevant.
>
I don't know what that means. Do you mean that if:
root creates /dev/foo with 0666 perms
eviluser opens /dev/foo with O_NODE
root chmods /dev/foo to 0000
root unlinks /dev/foo
then eviluser can't open /proc/self/fd/whatever for O_RDRW
Because if eviluser could still open /proc/self/fd/whatever for O_RDRW
(or anything else for that matter if O_NODE isn't set) then you have a
security problem.
--Andy
--
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