[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140429183534.GB19325@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:35:34 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Marian Marinov <mm@...com>
Cc: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
LXC development mailing-list
<lxc-devel@...ts.linuxcontainers.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ioctl CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE is checked in the wrong namespace
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 04:49:14PM +0300, Marian Marinov wrote:
>
> I'm proposing a fix to this, by replacing the capable(CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE)
> check with ns_capable(current_cred()->user_ns, CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE).
Um, wouldn't it be better to simply fix the capable() function?
/**
* capable - Determine if the current task has a superior capability in effect
* @cap: The capability to be tested for
*
* Return true if the current task has the given superior capability currently
* available for use, false if not.
*
* This sets PF_SUPERPRIV on the task if the capability is available on the
* assumption that it's about to be used.
*/
bool capable(int cap)
{
return ns_capable(&init_user_ns, cap);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(capable);
The documentation states that it is for "the current task", and I
can't imagine any use case, where user namespaces are in effect, where
using init_user_ns would ever make sense.
No? Otherwise, pretty much every single use of capable() would be
broken, not just this once instances in ext4/ioctl.c.
- Ted
--
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