linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] fs: add O_BENEATH

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]

Message-ID: <CALCETrWJ-rqDo8OvSZWPUt1806gObNtwVHvC4M6kfQgvd3Eg9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:53:01 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>
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 8:49 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com> wrote:
> 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?
>

Ugh, you're probably right.  I wish openat had separate flags and
atflags arguments.  Oh well.

--Andy

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/