linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] openat2: reject RESOLVE_BENEATH|RESOLVE_IN

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]

Message-ID: <4ce6ba2c-8b23-78aa-47c0-8c9673273e8f@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:28:26 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] openat2: reject RESOLVE_BENEATH|RESOLVE_IN_ROOT

On 10/7/20 4:36 AM, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> This was an oversight in the original implementation, as it makes no
> sense to specify both scoping flags to the same openat2(2) invocation
> (before this patch, the result of such an invocation was equivalent to
> RESOLVE_IN_ROOT being ignored).
> 
> This is a userspace-visible ABI change, but the only user of openat2(2)
> at the moment is LXC which doesn't specify both flags and so no
> userspace programs will break as a result.
> 
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v5.6+
> Fixes: fddb5d430ad9 ("open: introduce openat2(2) syscall")
> Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
> ---
>   fs/open.c                                      | 4 +++
>   tools/testing/selftests/openat2/openat2_test.c | 8 +++++++-

You are combining fs change with selftest change.

Is there a reason why these two changes are combined?
2 separate patches is better.

thanks,
-- Shuah