linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] fanotify, inotify, dnotify, security: add security hook for fs notifications

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:29:32 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
cc:     Aaron Goidel <acgoide@...ho.nsa.gov>, paul@...l-moore.com,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz,
        amir73il@...il.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fanotify, inotify, dnotify, security: add security
 hook for fs notifications

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, Casey Schaufler wrote:

> On 7/10/2019 6:34 AM, Aaron Goidel wrote:
> 
> > Furthermore, fanotify watches grant more power to
> > an application in the form of permission events. While notification events
> > are solely, unidirectional (i.e. they only pass information to the
> > receiving application), permission events are blocking. Permission events
> > make a request to the receiving application which will then reply with a
> > decision as to whether or not that action may be completed.
> 
> You're not saying why this is an issue.

Also in the description, please explain the issues with read and write 
notifications and why a simple 'read' permission is not adequate.


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