From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Eugene Teo <eugene@redhat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Bodo Eggert <7eggert@web.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: add NOFOLLOW flag to umount(2)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:01:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100221020144.GV30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100211172100.GA28533@infradead.org>
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:21:00PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:15:53PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > - renamed flag to UMOUNT_NOFOLLOW
> > - added UMOUNT_UNUSED for feature detection
>
> Umm, why? MNT_ certainly isn't the best naming for unmount flags,
> but switching convention after we had a few doesn't make any sense.
Actually, I've got more interesting question: what's being attempted
there? Is that just a "let's protect ourselves against somebody feeding
us an untrusted symlink"? I'm not sure if it makes much sense; if we
are dealing with pathnames on untrusted fs, there's nothing to stop the
attacker from having /mnt/foo/dir (originally containing a mountpoint
at /mnt/foo/dir/usr) killed and replaced with a symlink to /, making any
code that does umount() on such pathnames vulnerable as hell anyway.
Lack of LOOKUP_FOLLOW affects only the last pathname component. So what
is that patch trying to make safe?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-21 2:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-10 11:15 [PATCH v2] vfs: add NOFOLLOW flag to umount(2) Miklos Szeredi
2010-02-11 17:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-02-11 18:06 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-02-21 2:01 ` Al Viro [this message]
2010-02-22 20:29 ` Miklos Szeredi
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=20100221020144.GV30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=7eggert@web.de \
--cc=eugene@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
/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.