linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Add trusted_for(2) (was O

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]

Date:   Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:40:22 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Philippe Trébuchet 
        <philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>,
        Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>,
        Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC)

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 2:28 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>  (4) maybe we want to add a flag for the "euid vs real uid", and that
> would be in the "flags" field, since that changes the actual *lookup*
> semantics

Duh. We already did that long ago, and it's there as AT_EACCESS.

I should have just looked at the code more closely.

But that "you didn't even check what we already do, Linus" thing just
makes it even more obvious that all of this makes perfect sense in the
confines of access() already, and a new "check _these_ protections"
should just be a new mode bit.

                 Linus