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: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:18:41 +0000 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>, Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: Upstream first policy On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:59:11AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I'm not fond of selinux, to put it mildly, but "pathname-based" stuff simply > > doesn't match how the pathname resolution is defined on Unix... > > Again, I'm not claiming that we should change how "open" works and has > always worked. I don't even understand why you have that crazy "either or" > mentality to begin with. Why? > > It's not "either pathname or inode". I'm saying _both_ make sense. > > In some situations, the name itself really is what is fundamentally > special about the file. And mapping from names to files is a function of contents of many objects. You need to protect that contents on all objects involved *anyway*. Which leaves what for "protecting by pathname"? I'm not saying that it's either or. I am saying that it's been oversold to hell and back, BTW, but that's a separate story. And I'm very sceptical about separate protection of different directory entries, which is *all* that is left for pathname-based stuff, AFAICS. -- 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