[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150427053823.9847.qmail@ns.horizon.com>
Date: 27 Apr 2015 01:38:23 -0400
From: "George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To: luto@...aptial.net, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux@...izon.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Sharing credentials in general (Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1)
Linus wrote:
> It would be insane to say that the open system call should have an
> explicit argument saying that the vfs layer should take your privileges
> into account.
On the contrary, it would be a big improvement on the current interface.
To be clearer, it would be great if the open system call took an explicit
argument saying *which* privileges it should take into account.
All that screwing around with uid, euid and fsuid and crap would be
a lot simpler if it was explicit in the open() call which permissions
were desired.
In my "If I had a time machine and could go back and talk to Ken & Dennis"
fantasy, there would be no open(), only openat(), and the permissions
would be associated with the dirfd.
In addition to the now-current standard three fds, there would be
additional ones for root and cwd. And, in a setuid program,
a separate set for effective uids.
So openat(fd, path, flags) would use the real or effective permissions
depending on which fd was in use. A process could drop permissions
by closing the associated fd. Etc.
(And a program which was written without setuid awareness would only
use the real-uid dirfds, and the setuidness would do nothing.)
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists