linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH v3] security: Place security_path_post

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: <CAHC9VhQjcvRBo30Y346p5Tbo3pspxnnmrLj6nvv1g=e_52SQUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:02:53 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, 
	brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, pc@...guebit.com, 
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>, 
	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v3] security: Place security_path_post_mknod()
 where the original IMA call was

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:11 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 11:07 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> >
> > However, as reported by VFS maintainers, successful mknod operation does
> > not mean that the dentry always has an inode attached to it (for example,
> > not for FIFOs on a SAMBA mount).
> >
> > If that condition happens, the kernel crashes when
> > security_path_post_mknod() attempts to verify if the inode associated to
> > the dentry is private.
>
> This is an example of why making the LSM hook more generic than needed didn't
> work.  Based on the discussion there is no valid reason for making the hook more
> generic.

I agree, I think we all do, but I don't think we want to get into
process discussions in the patch description.  The description
explains the original motivation for the buggy commit, the problem it
caused, and the solution; that's enough IMHO.

-- 
paul-moore.com