From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:42:13 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Message-Id: <20120217154213.ecf4f7b4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20120107185548.GA30748@outflux.net> <20120217152432.112fdace.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2012.2] fs: symlink restrictions on sticky directories To: Kees Cook Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , Rik van Riel , Federica Teodori , Lucian Adrian Grijincu , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Eric Paris , Randy Dunlap , Dan Rosenberg , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com List-ID: On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:36:09 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > > I think I disagree with this. __If the person compiling the kernel > > includes the feature in his kernel via the time-honoured process of > > "wtf is that thing? __Yeah, whatev", it gets turned on by default. __This > > could easily result in weird failures which would take a *long* time > > for an unsuspecting person to debug. > > > > Would it not be kinder to our users to start this out as > > turned-off-at-runtime unless the kernel configurer has deliberately > > gone in and enabled it? > > There was a fair bit of back-and-forth discussion about it. > Originally, I had it disabled, but, IIRC, Ingo urged me to have it be > the default. I can sent a patch to disable it if you want. What is the reasoning behind the current setting? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v2012.2] fs: symlink restrictions on sticky directories Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:42:13 -0800 Message-ID: <20120217154213.ecf4f7b4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20120107185548.GA30748@outflux.net> <20120217152432.112fdace.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , Rik van Riel , Federica Teodori , Lucian Adrian Grijincu , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Eric Paris , Randy Dunlap , Dan Rosenberg , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com To: Kees Cook Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:50265 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751389Ab2BQXmO (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:42:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:36:09 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > > I think I disagree with this. __If the person compiling the kernel > > includes the feature in his kernel via the time-honoured process of > > "wtf is that thing? __Yeah, whatev", it gets turned on by default. __This > > could easily result in weird failures which would take a *long* time > > for an unsuspecting person to debug. > > > > Would it not be kinder to our users to start this out as > > turned-off-at-runtime unless the kernel configurer has deliberately > > gone in and enabled it? > > There was a fair bit of back-and-forth discussion about it. > Originally, I had it disabled, but, IIRC, Ingo urged me to have it be > the default. I can sent a patch to disable it if you want. What is the reasoning behind the current setting?