linux-kernel - Re: Leaking Path in XFS's ioctl interface(missing LSM check)

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: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1809280720330.8410@namei.org>
Date:   Fri, 28 Sep 2018 07:23:42 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
cc:     Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, TongZhang <ztong@...edu>,
        darrick.wong@...cle.com, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Wenbo Shen <shenwenbosmile@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Leaking Path in XFS's ioctl interface(missing LSM check)

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Dave Chinner wrote:

> Sure, but there are so many CAP_SYS_ADMIN-only ioctls in the kernel
> that have no LSM coverage that this is not an isolated problem that
> people setting up such systems have to deal with. 

I could be missing something here, but all ioctls are mediated by LSM at a 
high level (security_file_ioctl). Some problematic ones are singled out at 
that point by LSMs for special handling.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>