Re: [PATCH v2012.1] fs: symlink restrictions on sticky directories

[Ingo Molnar]

* Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > * Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> @@ -1495,6 +1496,15 @@ static struct ctl_table fs_table[] = {
> >>  #endif
> >>  #endif
> >>       {
> >> +             .procname       = "protected_sticky_symlinks",
> >> +             .data           = &protected_sticky_symlinks,
> >> +             .maxlen         = sizeof(int),
> >> +             .mode           = 0644,
> >> +             .proc_handler   = proc_dointvec_minmax,
> >> +             .extra1         = &zero,
> >> +             .extra2         = &one,
> >> +     },
> >
> > Small detail:
> >
> > Might make sense to change the .mode to 0600, to make it 
> > harder for unprivileged attack code to guess whether this 
> > protection (and the resulting audit warning to the 
> > administrator) is enabled on a system or not.
> 
> Sure, I have no problem with that. In addition to this change, 
> what's the best next step for this patch?

Al and Linus's call I guess. Maybe ask Andrew whether he'd put 
it into -mm?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/