linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] add statmount(2) syscall

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]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSLGyFRSbeZXE7z61Y2aDJi_1Dedjw0ioFOckRCs0CRaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 15:10:50 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
        Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Matthew House <mattlloydhouse@...il.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] add statmount(2) syscall

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:58 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > +static int do_statmount(struct stmt_state *s)
> > > +{
> > > +   struct statmnt *sm = &s->sm;
> > > +   struct mount *m = real_mount(s->mnt);
> > > +   size_t copysize = min_t(size_t, s->bufsize, sizeof(*sm));
> > > +   int err;
> > > +
> > > +   err = security_sb_statfs(s->mnt->mnt_root);
> > > +   if (err)
> > > +           return err;
> > > +
> > > +   if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) &&
> > > +       !is_path_reachable(m, m->mnt.mnt_root, &s->root))
> > > +           return -EPERM;
> >
> > In order to be consistent with our typical access control ordering,
> > please move the security_sb_statfs() call down to here, after the
> > capability checks.
>
> I've moved the security_sb_statfs() calls accordingly.

Okay, good.  Did I miss a comment or a patch where that happened?  I
looked over the patchset and comments yesterday and didn't recall
seeing anything about shuffling the access control checks.

-- 
paul-moore.com