Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937301AbXFGVyw (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:54:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764995AbXFGVyo (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:54:44 -0400 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:33224 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933357AbXFGVyn (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:54:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:59:45 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Miloslav Trmac Cc: Andrew Morton , dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox , Steve Grubb , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH] Audit: Add TTY input auditing Message-ID: <20070607225945.1aa71a93@the-village.bc.nu> In-Reply-To: <46681417.5050200@redhat.com> References: <4666832D.8080603@redhat.com> <46668814.7080404@redhat.com> <20070606174113.b7fc31da.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070607111034.18bf68b6@the-village.bc.nu> <46681417.5050200@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1471 Lines: 38 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:20:07 +0200 Miloslav Trmac wrote: > Alan Cox napsal(a): > >>> + if (filp->f_op->read == tty_read) { > >>> + disable = 0; > >>> + break; > > Why says a tty will always have f->op->read == tty_read ? > AFAICS from tty_io.c, it will always be tty_read or hung_up_tty_read. > Normal user processes would exit after SIGHUP and not reopen a TTY. > > (I have copied the condition from __do_SAK(). That of course doesn't > mean it's correct.) > Mirek Right it may be hung_up_tty_read that was what bothered me. I've had a think through the different scenarios and I can't think of a simple one where I can abuse this as the vhangup() path is current root triggered and loses the tty (so I can't reopen on it) There are more complex questions - what happens when the much needed revoke() goes mainstream [and we fix all the security issues its lack causes], and the case where I do login on tty1 login on tty2 On tty1 run a process which sets nohup and causes a vhangup then opens tty2 while tty2 command line is running some long running program that doesn't take input that I could plausibly run legitimately (eg a long complex sql query, or a slow security check etc) Alan - 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/