[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <94ee92fa-b07b-af9f-c631-18e96a0a465c@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:36:55 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, security@...ian.org,
"security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"security@...ntu.com >> security" <security@...ntu.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>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tty-next] devpts: Make each mount of devpts an independent
filesystem.
On 06/02/16 13:22, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> The problem with lookup_one_len_unlocked is that it still calls
> inode_permission.
>
> As per previous discussions we don't want the path based permission
> checks involved in that lookup.
>
Is it that we don't *want* it, or that we don't *need* it? In the
latter case, we could just do whatever makes the code simpler, no?
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists