[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87vb3newkk.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:10:03 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
security@...ian.org, "security\@kernel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"security\@ubuntu.com \>\> security" <security@...ntu.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@...el32.net>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] devpts: Teach /dev/ptmx to find the associated devpts via path lookup
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 9, 2016 5:45 PM, "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> What we *do* want to do, though, is to prevent the following:
>>
>> I don't see the point. Why do you bring up this insane scenario that nobody
>> can possibly care about?
>>
>> So you actually have any reason to believe somebody does that?
>>
>> I already asked about that earlier, and the silence was deafening.
>
> I have no idea, but I'm generally uncomfortable with magical things
> that bypass normal security policy.
>
> That being said, here's an idea for fixing this, at least in the long
> run. Add a new devpts mount option "no_ptmx_redirect" that turns off
> this behavior for the super in question. That is, opening /dev/ptmx
> if "pts/ptmx" points to something with no_ptmx_redirect set will fail.
> Distros shipping new kernels could be encouraged to (finally!) make
> /dev/ptmx a symlink and set this option.
>
> We just might be able to get away with spelling that option "newinstance".
Interesting point. Very interesting point. At this point I don't know
that it is worth it, but that would trivially prevent any non-sense,
that might possibly happen. The downside would be that the semantics
of /dev/ptmx would be more complicated.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists