linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/posix_acl: apply umask if superblock disables ACL support

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: <CAKPOu+-rxm38_sMPv0gasOYvtefd8PJeSWR2Rk_N-mEYDmPqFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:15:38 +0200
From:   Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/posix_acl: apply umask if superblock disables ACL support

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:10 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> Have you verified that commit ac6800e279a2 ("fs: Add missing umask strip
> in vfs_tmpfile") doesn't already fix this?

No, I havn't - I submitted this patch already several years ago, but
it was never merged, and since then, I've been carrying this patch
around in all kernels I ever used. While doing some other kernel work
this week, I decided to resubmit it, because I thought it's a security
vulnerability to ignore the umask. But thanks, it's a good hint, I'll
check that 2022 commit.