[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171022052536.ptxvnyafk25pakrk@thunk.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 01:25:36 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Nicolas Belouin <nicolas@...ouin.fr>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: check for DAC_READ_SEARCH instead of SYS_ADMIN
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 03:24:46PM +0200, Nicolas Belouin wrote:
> These checks are meant to prevent leaks or attacks via directory
> traversal, the use of CAP_SYS_ADMIN here is a misuse,
> CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH being way more appropriate as a process
> with CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH is entrusted with going trough all directories.
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN is not meant to flag such a process.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Belouin <nicolas@...ouin.fr>
No. lookup_dcookie() is a horrid, horrid, hack which is
*spectacularly* dangerous. We should not be trying to encourage its
use for anything beside its single legacy user, oprofile(8), for which
CAP_SYS_ADMIN is appropriate.
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
