Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: Tighten up linkat(..., AT_EMPTY_PATH)

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Sure.  But aren't they always last?
>
> What do you mean? I'd say that the /proc lookup is always *innermost*.
> Which means that it certainly cannot bail out, since there are many
> levels of nesting outside of it.

I was thinking iteratively, so I said "last" instead of "innermost".

>
>> With the current code structure, trying to enforce some kind of
>> security restriction in the middle of lookup seems really unpleasant.
>
> If it's conditional (ie "linkat behaves differently from openat"), it
> certainly means that we'd have to pass in that info in annoying ways.
>

Hmm.  That depends on whether things like I_LINKABLE should be
considered.  We might also want to ban open("/proc/self/fd/3", O_RDWR)
if !CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH and fd wasn't opened with O_RDWR.  Both of
those will require passing information in or out.

I'll see how nasty this ends up being.  (This may take awhile -- I'm
not at all familiar with this code, and this is at best a minor side
project for me.)

--Andy
--
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/