Re: group ownership of tun devices -- nonfunctional?

From: Rene Herman
Date: Sun Aug 19 2007 - 20:31:25 EST


On 08/19/2007 11:42 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Rene Herman wrote:

On 08/19/2007 06:05 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:

IMHO the check is broken:

+ if (((tun->owner != -1 &&
+ current->euid != tun->owner) ||
+ (tun->group != -1 &&
+ current->egid != tun->group)) &&
+ !capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
return -EPERM;

It should be something like:

+ if (!((tun->owner == tun->owner) ||
+ (tun->group == tun->group) ||
???

Argh, I edited asuming the same order of variables. Substitute current->e{uid,gid} for one of the sides.

Okay. Just had to ask. That looked so odd...

+ capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)))
return -EPERM;

The intended semantics is If the user is not
* the allowed user
or
* member of the allowed group
or
* cabable of CAP_NET_ADMIN
then error out. I'm asuming

There is a short description of the desired semantics in the link that was posted:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/18/228

===
The user now is allowed to send packages if either his euid or his egid
matches the one specified via tunctl (via -u or -g respecitvely). If both
gid and uid are set via tunctl, both have to match.
===

Paraphrasing the original code above, it's saying:

if ((owner_is_set && does_not_match) || (group_is_set && does_not_match))
bugger_off_unless(CAP_NET_ADMIN);

or reverting the logic:

if ((owner_is_unset || does_match) && (group_is_unset || does_match))
good_to_go();

which probably matches the intention -- we're good to go only if the credentials that are set also match.

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