From: Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.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
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:00:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100601150049.GQ4098@outflux.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100601075529.GA11397@infradead.org>
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 03:55:29AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.
Okay, thanks; that clarifies some of my confusion. It sounds like
there are some people that genuinely believe that the symlink-following
logic should not change. I would pose, then, a question of "what
are legitimate and safe situations that require following cross-user
symlinks in a sticky world-writable directory?" And if the answers to
that aren't very convincing, then I think it's reasonable to include at
least an option to change the behavior.
> > 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.
Right, that was my point exactly. It didn't make sense to object to it
being in fs/. The objection was to having it in the kernel at all. So now
I can focus my efforts on convincing people about the value of making this
a setting in the kernel, like turning on or off TCP syn-flood protection.
Some people may demand it, some people may hate it, but the choice it
up to the end user.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-01 15:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-31 3:04 [PATCH v2] fs: block cross-uid sticky symlinks Kees Cook
2010-05-31 3:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-05-31 4:12 ` Kees Cook
2010-05-31 3:54 ` Eric Paris
2010-05-31 3:54 ` Eric Paris
2010-05-31 4:23 ` Kees Cook
2010-05-31 10:23 ` Alan Cox
2010-05-31 17:50 ` Kees Cook
2010-05-31 18:09 ` Alan Cox
2010-05-31 19:07 ` Kees Cook
2010-05-31 19:52 ` Al Viro
2010-05-31 22:00 ` Kees Cook
2010-05-31 19:27 ` Al Viro
2010-05-31 10:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-05-31 17:57 ` Kees Cook
2010-05-31 23:09 ` James Morris
2010-06-01 3:24 ` Kees Cook
2010-06-01 7:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-01 11:55 ` Eric Paris
2010-06-01 14:52 ` Kees Cook
2010-06-01 15:34 ` Eric Paris
2010-06-01 17:31 ` tytso
2010-06-01 15:00 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2010-05-31 10:47 ` tytso
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=20100601150049.GQ4098@outflux.net \
--to=kees.cook@canonical.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hidave.darkstar@gmail.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=tim.gardner@canonical.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.