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  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]
Date:	Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:31:22 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <>
To:	Al Viro <>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>,
	Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: fix linkat error for unprivileged AT_EMPTY_PATH

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Al Viro <> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 05:25:23PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> From: Miklos Szeredi <>
>> Return proper error value for linkat(..., AT_EMPTY_PATH) without enough
>> privileges.
>> I guess ENOENT was used here, because without AT_EMPTY_PATH that's what
>> we'd return for an empty path.  But it is wrong for AT_EMPTY_PATH, since we
>> might not even be passing an empty path, we are simply complaining about
>> lack of privs for which EPERM is the proper error.
> Umm...  Are you sure that nothing in userland is checking for that
> return value?  I agree that EPERM would make more sense, but...

How could I be sure?

But does it even make sense to check for that error value?  I don't
think it is, since we have never allowed unprivileged AT_EMPTY_PATH
for linkat  (except by bb2314b4799649 which was reverted before being
included in a release).

So if when (if ever) we do allow that, *then* testing for an error
value will make sense.  But surely if one is writing code which can't
even be tested, then it won't come as a big surprise if it will
eventually fail...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists