From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754817Ab0FAHzl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 1 Jun 2010 03:55:41 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:52069 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753401Ab0FAHzh (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 1 Jun 2010 03:55:37 -0400
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 03:55:29 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
       Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>,
       Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
       Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
       Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
       "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: block cross-uid sticky symlinks
Message-ID: <20100601075529.GA11397@infradead.org>
References: <20100531030402.GQ6056@outflux.net> <20100531103510.GA30021@infradead.org> <20100531175733.GD4098@outflux.net> <alpine.LRH.2.00.1006010904190.675@tundra.namei.org> <20100601032423.GL4098@outflux.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100601032423.GL4098@outflux.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from <hch@infradead.org> by bombadil.infradead.org
	See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 08:24:23PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Well, that's what I'm trying to understand.  It sounds like there is some
> general agreement that the issue needs to be solved, but some folks do not
> want it in the core VFS.  As in, the objections aren't with how symlink
> behavior is changed, just that the changes would be in the fs/ directory.

No, it's not.  It's not a change we can make for the default that
everyone uses.  If you're keen to mess up installations you control (aka
ubuntu valuedadd viper) push it into a special LSM or rather a
non-standard rule for it.  It really doesn't matter if it's in fs/ or
security/ but it's simplify not going to happen by default.

> My rationale is that if it's in commoncaps, it's effective for everyone, so
> it might as well be in core VFS.  If the VFS objections really do boil down
> to "not in fs/" then I'm curious if doing this in commoncaps is acceptable.

If you think the objection is about having things in fs/ you're smoking
some really bad stuff.