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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:01:44 +0000 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Eugene Teo <eugene@...hat.com>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: add NOFOLLOW flag to umount(2) On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:21:00PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:15:53PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > - renamed flag to UMOUNT_NOFOLLOW > > - added UMOUNT_UNUSED for feature detection > > Umm, why? MNT_ certainly isn't the best naming for unmount flags, > but switching convention after we had a few doesn't make any sense. Actually, I've got more interesting question: what's being attempted there? Is that just a "let's protect ourselves against somebody feeding us an untrusted symlink"? I'm not sure if it makes much sense; if we are dealing with pathnames on untrusted fs, there's nothing to stop the attacker from having /mnt/foo/dir (originally containing a mountpoint at /mnt/foo/dir/usr) killed and replaced with a symlink to /, making any code that does umount() on such pathnames vulnerable as hell anyway. Lack of LOOKUP_FOLLOW affects only the last pathname component. So what is that patch trying to make safe? -- 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