From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o5HBcFQp175000 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:38:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:40:51 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [Security] XFS swapext ioctl minor security issues Message-ID: <20100617114051.GA13118@infradead.org> References: <20100616121142.GA22317@infradead.org> <20100616133433.GA16437@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dan Rosenberg Cc: Christoph Hellwig , security@kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Eugene Teo , aelder@sgi.com On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57:35AM -0400, Dan Rosenberg wrote: > I removed the part of the patch dealing with suid/sgid bits - your > reasoning seems good, we clearly don't want to just drop the suid/sgid > bits. ?I was just trying to point out the case where the caller is not > the owner and has write access to the file; since in the ordinary case > writing to that file would result in dropping the suid bit, I thought > this ioctl should try to replicate that behavior. Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig Alex, can you push it to Linus ASAP? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs