linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] vfs: new 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: <E1NHdJy-00037l-Jb@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:08:10 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, luto@....edu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vfs: new O_NODE open flag

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
> > In other words, revoking file handles is not enough, we really need to
> > revoke the _inode_.  And if we do that then O_NODE handles are
> > perfectly harmless.
> 
> If you have revoke() you are half way there, you also the need to make
> sure any user cases are updated and well established before you change
> anything under them. It's not good adding a kernel feature which makes an
> old udev version insecure.

It doesn't, see example with hard link two mails up.

Alan, you are just ignoring facts and trying to push revoke(2) which
in fact doesn't have much to do with this issue.  revoke(2) is about
*open devices*, O_NODE doesn't produce an open device.  Don't you
understand that?

Thanks,
Miklos
--
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/