linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] eCryptfs: Gracefully refuse miscdev file ops on inherited/passed files

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: <20120622175808.GA24984@boyd>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:58:09 -0700
From:	Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
To:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc:	ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] eCryptfs: Gracefully refuse miscdev file ops on
 inherited/passed files

On 2012-06-22 19:47:35, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com> wrote:
> > File operations on /dev/ecryptfs would BUG() when the operations were
> > performed by processes other than the process that originally opened the
> > file. This could happen with open files inherited after fork() or file
> > descriptors passed through IPC mechanisms. Rather than calling BUG(), an
> > error code can be safely returned in most situations.
> >
> > In ecryptfs_miscdev_release(), eCryptfs still needs to handle the
> > release even if the last file reference is being held by a process that
> > didn't originally open the file. ecryptfs_find_daemon_by_euid() will not
> > be successful, so a pointer to the daemon is stored in the file's
> > private_data. The private_data pointer is initialized when the miscdev
> > file is opened and only used when the file is released.
> >
> > https://launchpad.net/bugs/994247
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
> > Reported-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
> > Cc: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
> > ---
> 
> I've been running it a while now and haven't seen the problem I've
> reported reproducing.

Thanks for the testing!

> 
> Is it possible to merge this fix into 3.5?

That's my plan. I'll target this bug fix and the 2nd patch that removes
unused code for 3.5. I'll wait for 3.6 to merge the third patch.

Tyler

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)