linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O

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: <CAH_=xobsXZq9M-vXDN_+cQmvRLtgPOzHMbrnzsEToMgLD5CoxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:49:24 -0800
From:	Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> That doesn't help because we explicitly reject O_RDONLY when combined
>> with O_TMPFILE.
>
> I think I'm missing something.  How is an O_RDONLY temporary file
> useful?  Wouldn't you want an O_RDWR tempfile with mode 0400 or
> something like that?

Isn't it because they are essentially emulating an atomic open()
capable of creating a file with inherited ACLs, according to
relatively complex rules? open *can* be used with O_CREAT|O_RDONLY
(touch(1) might do that), which would naively translate into:

        fd = open(dir, O_TMPFILE|O_RDONLY, 0600)
        fsetxattr(fd, "...")
        fsetxattr(fd, "...")
        linkat(AT_FDCWD, "/proc/self/fd/...", ..., AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW)
        return fd;

Now this would be happening on the server, and the only reason why it
would be important to ensure that fd is O_RDONLY, is that smbd does
not do its own bookkeeping of how each file handle was opened, and
would rather have the kernel enforce O_RDONLY?

With O_TMPFILE as implemented now, smbd would have to do open(dir,
O_TMPFILE|O_RDWR, 0600), but internally keep track that O_RDONLY was
requested by the client on that fd, and block any writes to fd itself.
--
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/