linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] apply: refuse touching a file beyond symlink

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]

Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:46:15 -0500
From:	Jeff King <peff@...f.net>
To:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
Cc:	Git Mailing List <git@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	twaugh@...hat.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] apply: refuse touching a file beyond symlink

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:42:49AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@...f.net> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:45:22PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> +	if (!patch->is_delete && path_is_beyond_symlink(patch->new_name))
> >> +		return error(_("affected file '%s' is beyond a symbolic link"),
> >> +			     patch->new_name);
> >
> > Why does this not kick in when deleting a file?
> 
> Half-written logic, forgotten to be revisited (i.e. "ok, anything
> that is not delete we can check new_name, so do that first, later
> we'd deal with deletion patch and I think the way to do so is by
> checking old_name, but let's make sure this case works first").

OK, I was worried I was missing something clever. :)

I agree that checking patch->old_name should work in that case.

-Peff
--
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/