linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cifs: Fix getting reparse points from server without WSL 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZunqmhGHniR/4a9d@jeremy-rocky-laptop.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 13:46:18 -0700
From: Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org>
To: ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@...il.com>
Cc: Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
	Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
	Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cifs: Fix getting reparse points from server without WSL
 support

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 06:44:39AM +1000, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Sept 2024 at 06:37, Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Ok. But then I do not understand why Linux client parses and uses uid
>> and gids which are sent over the wire. If you are saying that the SIDs
>> must be the only source of truth then Linux client should rather ignore
>> uid and gid values?
>
>What I think Jeremy is refering to is that mixing uids and sids in the
>protocol itself is
>a protocol design mistake.
>Because this means that some PDUs in the protocol operate on SIDs but
>others operate on
>UID/GIDs and this means there is great risk of mistakes and have the
>sid<->uid mapping return
>different results depending on the actual PDU.
>
>Sometimes the sid<->uid mapping happens in the server, at other times
>the mapping happens in the client
>and it is very difficult to guarantee that the mapping is consistent
>across PDUs in the protocol
>as well as across different clients.

Thanks Ronnie. You said that much better than I did :-) :-).