From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: 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 v3] vfs: new O_NODE open flag
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:15:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091202191549.1dbffa2e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1NFrsv-0000mE-2L@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
> 1) There's a security hole with dynamicly allocated devices if
> permissions on new device are difference than on old device.
>
> The issue is valid, but also exists if hard links are created to
> device nodes. udev already defends against this by setting
> permissions on device to zero before unlinking it.
udev defends against it with the specific knowledge that any existing
open means the device is open and cannot be unloaded. The combination is
required (and some other happenstance properties).
For O_NODE you must implement revoke() as well and get it into tools like
udev before you are safe. I appreciate "you need revoke" is a bit like
saying "there is one small problem, you just need to reimplement a major
subsystem while you are at it", but from a security perspective I don't
see any other way to make O_NODE safe in this situation.
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-02 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-02 16:16 Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-02 19:15 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2009-12-02 20:13 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-02 20:48 ` Alan Cox
2009-12-03 5:46 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-05 14:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2009-12-05 19:40 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-05 20:28 ` Alan Cox
2009-12-05 20:35 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-05 23:13 ` Alan Cox
2009-12-07 6:08 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-07 12:23 ` Alan Cox
2009-12-07 12:41 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-07 12:47 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-07 13:03 ` Alan Cox
2009-12-07 13:08 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-07 13:15 ` Alan Cox
2009-12-07 13:16 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-07 14:13 ` Alan Cox
2009-12-07 14:25 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-07 14:46 ` Alan Cox
2009-12-07 15:11 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-07 17:40 ` Alan Cox
2009-12-07 15:03 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2009-12-07 15:50 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-12-07 17:16 ` Alan Cox
2009-12-10 7:39 ` Pavel Machek
2009-12-06 8:46 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091202191549.1dbffa2e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=adilger@sun.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=drepper@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®