[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1306867346.2816.49.camel@menhir>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:42:26 +0100
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
chris.mason@...cle.com, josef@...hat.com, agruen@...bit.com,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Cache xattr security drop check for write v2
Hi,
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 11:06 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It sounds like a good idea, but cluster filesystems will need to clear
> > the flag when they update their in-core inodes. Without that we could
> > have:
> >
> > Node A looks up inode and sets S_NOSEC since its not suid
> > Node B does chmod +s on the inode
> > Node A now has S_NOSEC set, but inode is suid, so writes don't clear
> > suid
>
> Good point. I assume that's also true for network file systems.
>
> This would essentially argue that for those putting the helper
> into the inode read paths is not optional. I'll look into this
> later.
>
> > - flags &= ~(S_SYNC|S_APPEND|S_IMMUTABLE|S_NOATIME|S_DIRSYNC);
> > + flags &= ~(S_SYNC|S_APPEND|S_IMMUTABLE|S_NOATIME|S_DIRSYNC|S_NOSEC);
> > + if (!is_sxid(inode->i_mode))
> > + flags |= S_NOSEC;
>
> Doesn't that need a check for no xattr too? or do you not support
> those currently?
>
> Note I added a helper for this in the latest version:
> inode_has_no_xattr()
>
> -Andi
Yes, it should test for xattr too,
Steve.
--
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