[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200603170135.GD568636@grain>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:01:35 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Adrian Reber <areber@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <ovzxemul@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Nicolas Viennot <Nicolas.Viennot@...sigma.com>,
Michał Cłapiński <mclapinski@...gle.com>,
Kamil Yurtsever <kyurtsever@...gle.com>,
Dirk Petersen <dipeit@...il.com>,
Christine Flood <chf@...hat.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Radostin Stoyanov <rstoyanov1@...il.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] capabilities: Introduce CAP_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 06:23:26PM +0200, Adrian Reber wrote:
...
>
> /*
> - * Only allow CAP_SYS_ADMIN to follow the links, due to concerns about how the
> - * symlinks may be used to bypass permissions on ancestor directories in the
> - * path to the file in question.
> + * Only allow CAP_SYS_ADMIN and CAP_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE to follow the links, due
> + * to concerns about how the symlinks may be used to bypass permissions on
> + * ancestor directories in the path to the file in question.
> */
> static const char *
> proc_map_files_get_link(struct dentry *dentry,
> struct inode *inode,
> struct delayed_call *done)
> {
> - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> + if (!(capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) || capable(CAP_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE)))
> return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
You know, I'm still not sure if we need this capable() check at all since
we have proc_fd_access_allowed() called but anyway can we please make this
if() condition more explicit
if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) && !capable(CAP_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE))
return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
though I won't insist. And I'll reread the series a bit later once I've
some spare time to.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists