[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100601214527.GU31073@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:45:27 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fs: allow protected cross-uid sticky symlinks
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:07:34PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > I don't buy it. If we are concerned about the symlinks in the middle of
> > pathname, your checks are useless (mkdir /tmp/a, ln -s whatever /tmp/a/b,
> > have victim open /tmp/a/b/something). If we are not, then your checks are
> > in the wrong place.
>
> Well, that's not traditionally where the problems happen, but I have no
> problem strengthening the protection to include a full examination of the
> entire path looking for sticky/world-writable directories.
>
> If not, what is the right place for the checks?
Handling of trailing symlink on open(). At most. And I wouldn't be
surprised if the real answer turns out to include "... if we have
O_CREAT in flags", but that needs to be determined.
--
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