[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878u09mo7a.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:46:17 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, security@...ian.org,
security@...nel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
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>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] devpts: Teach /dev/ptmx to automount the appropriate devpts via path lookup
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:35:20AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> +static inline bool is_dev_ptmx(struct inode *inode)
>> +{
>> + return inode->i_rdev == MKDEV(TTYAUX_MAJOR, PTMX_MINOR);
>> +}
>
> I'm not sure whether it matters, but I think a FUSE filesystem
> should be able to create a fake device that passes this check.
> fuse_init_inode() calls init_special_inode() with a user-supplied
> rdev for character devices. Is that a problem?
It isn't a problem with fuse, and I don't think it is a real problem
in general, but yes it would be good if that code had honored nodev
mount options.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists