linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/16] vfs: atomic open v4 (part 1)

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

Date:	Fri, 25 May 2012 16:18:39 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hch@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] vfs: atomic open v4 (part 1)

Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:

> > For instance, in lookup_open(), you call security_path_mknod() prior to
> > calling vfs_create(), but you don't call it prior to calling atomic_open()
> > or in, say, nfs_atomic_open().
> 
> We call security_path_mknod() before ->atomic_open() in may_o_create().

Okay.

> > I'm also wondering if you're missing an audit_inode() call in the if
> > (created) path after the retry_lookup label.
> 
> There's no audit_inode() on the created dentry neither in the original
> code nor in the modified code.
> 
> But that may be a bug regardless, it's just independent of my changes.
> At least AFAICS.

Fair enough.

David
--
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/