Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757550AbZCLQbj (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:31:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756145AbZCLQbP (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:31:15 -0400 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([141.211.133.115]:55328 "EHLO pickle.fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755922AbZCLQbP (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:31:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:31:10 -0400 To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Igor Zhbanov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, neilb@suse.de, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, David Howells , James Morris , Andrew Morgan Subject: Re: VFS, NFS security bug? Should CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE be added to CAP_FS_MASK? Message-ID: <20090312163110.GE2081@fieldses.org> References: <20090311232356.GP13540@fieldses.org> <20090312160300.GC13046@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090312160300.GC13046@us.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) From: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1538 Lines: 37 On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:03:00AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting J. Bruce Fields (bfields@fieldses.org): > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 03:53:34PM +0300, Igor Zhbanov wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > It seems that CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE were forgotten to be > > (Still looking into this, but meanwhile...) > > > > added to CAP_FS_MASK_B0 in linux-2.6.x and to CAP_FS_MASK in > > > linux-2.4.x. Both capabilities affects file system and can be > > > considered file system capabilities. > > > > Sounds right to me--I'd expect rootsquash to guarantee that new device > > nodes can't be created from the network. Cc'ing random people from the > > git log for include/linux/capability.h in hopes they can help. > > > > --b. > > > > (Also: my copy of mknod(2) claims "Linux... does not have the CAP_MKNOD > > capability". I assume the manpage is out of date?) > > No, the whole paragraph is: > > EPERM mode requested creation of something other than a regular file, FIFO > (named pipe), or Unix domain socket, and the caller is not privileged > (Linux: does not have the CAP_MKNOD capability); > > So it's saying that 'caller is not privileged', in linux, can be > interpreted to mean 'the caller does not have CAP_MKNOD'. Ah! Foiled by punctuation. Apologies!--b. -- 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/