linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add O_DENY* flags to fcntl and cifs

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:	Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:49:49 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>
Cc:	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add O_DENY* flags to fcntl and cifs

On Thu,  6 Dec 2012 22:26:28 +0400
Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru> wrote:

> Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this change is ok for network filesystems, itsn't not targeted for local filesystems due security problems (e.g. when a user process can deny root to delete a file).

If I have my root fs on NFS then the same applies does it not.

Your patches fail to describe the security semantics and what file rights
I must have to apply each option. How do I track down a lock user, what
tools are provided ? How do the new options interact with the security
layer?

I don't have a problem with the idea, but it needs a lot more clear
description of how it works so the model can be checked and if need be
things tweaked (eg needing write to denywrite etc)

Alan
--
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/