Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759870AbZKFUzn (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:55:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759826AbZKFUzm (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:55:42 -0500 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:44451 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759820AbZKFUzm (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:55:42 -0500 To: Pavel Machek Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Alan Cox , akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, dhowells@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org, adilger@sun.com, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, drepper@gmail.com, jamie@shareable.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 resend] vfs: new O_NODE open flag References: <20091105131545.72b4e319@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20091106141742.GA1428@ucw.cz> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:55:33 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20091106141742.GA1428@ucw.cz> (Pavel Machek's message of "Fri\, 6 Nov 2009 15\:17\:42 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=76.21.114.89;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 76.21.114.89 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:26:12 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on in01.mta.xmission.com); Unknown failure Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1602 Lines: 37 Pavel Machek writes: > On Thu 2009-11-05 15:27:06, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Alan Cox wrote: >> > > - re-opening normally after checking file type (there's a debate >> > > whether this would have security issues, but currently we do allow >> > > re-opening with increased permissions thorugh /proc/*/fd) >> > >> > Which has already been demonstrated to be an (unfixed) security hole. >> >> No it hasn't :) Jamie theorized that there *might* be a real world >> situation where the application writer didn't anticipate this >> behavior. But as to actual demonstration, we have not seen one yet, I >> think. > > See bugtraq, or lkml thread about symlinks with permissions. There's > demo script there. Exactly a theoretical discussion, that demonstrates user space applications with security holes can be written if they make assumptions about the world that are not true. So far no one who believes this to be a security hole has found it worth their while to look at nd->intent.open in proc_pid_follow_link and write a patch. Pavel you started out asking for help on how to do that and I think I have answered the original question. I am tired of the whining. If no one who is persuaded the kernel is wrong can be bothered to write a possibly buggy 5 line patch this is clearly not a security hole. Eric -- 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/