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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).