Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751194AbXAVJgo (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:36:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751300AbXAVJgo (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:36:44 -0500 Received: from ara.aytolacoruna.es ([195.55.102.196]:58554 "EHLO mx.aytolacoruna.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751194AbXAVJgn (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:36:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:36:30 +0100 From: Santiago Garcia Mantinan To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Santiago Garcia Mantinan , Grant Coady , dann frazier , 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> <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 X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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/