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 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ 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 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 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).