[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140630154928.GB10375@google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:49:28 +0100
From: David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Meredydd Luff <meredydd@...atehouse.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] fs: add O_BENEATH_ONLY flag to openat(2)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 07:49:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2014 3:36 AM, "David Drysdale" <drysdale@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add a new O_BENEATH_ONLY flag for openat(2) which restricts the
> > provided path, rejecting (with -EACCES) paths that are not beneath
> > the provided dfd. In particular, reject:
> > - paths that contain .. components
> > - paths that begin with /
> > - symlinks that have paths as above.
>
> I like this a lot. However, I think I'd like it even better if it
> were AT_BENEATH_ONLY so that it could be added to the rest of the *at
> family.
>
> --Andy
Wouldn't it need to be both O_BENEATH_ONLY (for openat()) and
AT_BENEATH_ONLY (for other *at() functions), like O_NOFOLLOW and
AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW? (I.e. aren't the AT_* flags in a different
numbering space than O_* flags?)
Or am I misunderstanding?
--
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