Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:36:30 +0100
From: Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@debian.org>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@debian.org>,
       Grant Coady <gcoady.lk@gmail.com>, dann frazier <dannf@dannf.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports
Message-ID: <20070122093630.GA20431@clandestino.aytolacoruna.es>
References: <20070117100030.GA11251@clandestino.aytolacoruna.es> <20070117215519.GX24090@1wt.eu> <20070119010040.GR16053@colo> <20070120010544.GY26210@colo> <t1r7r2thimh3gpuhtfc9l3aehjdd6dqkp8@4ax.com> <20070121230321.GC2480@1wt.eu> <20070122085400.GA16302@clandestino.aytolacoruna.es> <20070122091816.GA5144@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20070122091816.GA5144@1wt.eu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1852
Lines: 40

> > As you can see I now can see the symbolic links perfectly and they work as
> > expected.
> > 
> > In fact, this patch is working so well that it poses a security risk, as now
> > the devices on my /mnt/dev directory are not only seen as devices (like they
> > were seen on 2.4.33) but they also work (which didn't happen on 2.4.33).
> 
> Why do you consider this a security problem ? Is any user able to create a
> device entry with enough permissions ? As a general rule of thumb, networked
> file systems should be mounted with the "nodev" option.

You are completely right on that, it is just that I thought those devices
didn't work on 2.4.33, but I just retested again and they work ok, only that
they were not working to me on the PC I tested the other day and it was
because of a nodev option :-) just that.

So... I have finised with my tests, I have tested an x86 client on which it
worked ok, just like on the PowerPC client, both working perfectly just like
they used to do on 2.4.33.

> Grant, just to be sure, are you really certain that you tried the fixed kernel ?
> It is possible that you booted a wrong kernel during one of your tests. I'm
> intrigued by the fact that it changed nothing for you and that it fixed the
> problem for Santiago.

Maybe he had also applied some of the earlier patches you had sent and that
I did not apply to mine?

Just to clear things up a bit, I'm sure I'm with the 2.4.34 kernel and...
I'm running a pristine kernel with just this latest patch applied, the one
that changes S_IFREG for (fattr->f_mode & S_IFMT).

Regards...
-- 
Santiago Garc?a Manti??n
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/