From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: FUSE: regression when clearing setuid bits on chown
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 13:21:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1480962075.2544.30.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
Hi Miklos,
I think we've found a "regression" that has crept in due to this patch:
commit a09f99eddef44035ec764075a37bace8181bec38
Author: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Date: Sat Oct 1 07:32:32 2016 +0200
fuse: fix killing s[ug]id in setattr
Basically, the pjdfstests set the ownership of a file to 06555, and then
chowns it (as root) to a new uid/gid. Prior to the patch above, fuse
would send down a setattr with both the uid/gid change and a new mode.
Now, it just sends down the uid/gid change.
Technically this is NOTABUG, since POSIX doesn't _require_ that we clear
these bits for a privileged process, but Linux (wisely) has done that
and I think we don't want to change that behavior here.
So, the issue I think is the use of should_remove_suid, which will
always return 0 when the process has CAP_FSETID. That's appropriate (I
think) for write/truncate, but not chown, where we want to ignore that.
Thoughts on the right fix here? A simple fix would be to add an
"override" bool to should_remove_suid, but maybe there's some more
elegant way to do it?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
next reply other threads:[~2016-12-05 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-05 18:21 Jeff Layton [this message]
2016-12-06 10:02 ` FUSE: regression when clearing setuid bits on chown Miklos Szeredi
2016-12-06 12:13 ` Jeff Layton
2016-12-06 14:39 ` Miklos Szeredi
2016-12-06 14:45 ` Jeff Layton
2016-12-06 14:51 ` Miklos Szeredi
2016-12-06 14:54 ` Jeff Layton
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=1480962075.2544.30.camel@redhat.com \
--to=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.