linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] fcntl: Add F_GETOWNER

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120330195652.GM1892@moon>
Date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:56:52 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] fcntl: Add F_GETOWNER_UIDS option

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:46:51PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> I meant the dumper. Yes, at moment f_get/setown requires no privileges
> >> but I'm not sure if uid/euid is same or less sensible information
> >> than pid, that's why I though CAP_FOWNER might be worth to add, no?
> >
> > Hmm, I would say no, but that might be a good question for kees.
> >
> > IMO it's not sensitive information and so no sense requiring privilege
> > (and encouraging handing out of extra privilage to get at the info)
> 
> Nothing jumps out at me about just seeing uid/euid. Everything can be
> construed as an information leak, but this don't seem like something
> that needs special protection.

OK, thanks Kees.

	Cyrill
--
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/