| 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: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:28:43 -0400 From: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Smack: SMACK_IOCLOADACCESS On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 09:26 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > Is that really how it works? The code reads as if the buffer > passed by write gets modified in place and the writer is expected > to use that. There is nothing in the code that looks like the > response is getting set aside for a subsequent read. If it works > the way you say it does it will be subject to races up the wazoo. > If it works the way I think the code says it does it is abusive > of the write interface. It is a transaction-based IO, modeled after nfsctl, recommended to us by viro when we first implemented selinuxfs. Userspace writes the input arguments to the file, the kernel computes the result and stores it in a file-private buffer (hence unique for each open instance, not shared by multiple openers), and userspace then reads that result back. Not racy, not an abuse of write(), and recommended by the vfs maintainer to us. I think we're safe on that one. -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency -- 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