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]

Message-ID: <xmqqsiesau2g.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:32:07 -0800
From:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
To:	Jeff King <peff@...f.net>
Cc:	Git Mailing List <git@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
	"Linux-Kernel\@Vger. 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

Jeff King <peff@...f.net> writes:

> Hrm. That only works in the current code because we apply the deletion
> in the directory (and then clean up the now-empty directory) first. So I
> think you would need to check the paths progressively as you apply them,
> since those other parts of the diff "haven't happened yet".

Just to make sure that I am not hallucinating, I added this one:

diff --git a/t/t4114-apply-typechange.sh b/t/t4114-apply-typechange.sh
index ebadbc3..83ddf62 100755
--- a/t/t4114-apply-typechange.sh
+++ b/t/t4114-apply-typechange.sh
@@ -119,4 +119,12 @@ test_expect_success 'directory becomes symlink' '
 test_debug 'cat patch'
 
 
+test_expect_success 'directory becomes symlink' '
+	git checkout -f foo-becomes-a-directory &&
+	printf "%s\n" foo/baz foo >order &&
+	git diff-tree -Oorder -p HEAD foo-symlinked-to-bar >patch &&
+	git apply --index <patch
+	'
+test_debug 'cat patch'
+
 test_done

It is a copy of the original, only forcing the patches in the input
in the opposite order.

Having said that and also having read your two-phase internal
application change, I think that two-phase thing is probably a good
way to go (we may even want to ignore "previous_patch()" stuff, as
its "was_deleted()" and "tobe_deleted()" are all about "force the
application of a later patch to depend on the result of application
of an earlier patch").

--
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/