From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.133]:10454 "EHLO ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725878AbeJBFZf (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 01:25:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 08:45:28 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: Leaking Path in XFS's ioctl interface(missing LSM check) Message-ID: <20181001224528.GI18567@dastard> References: <5EF0D46A-C098-4B51-AD13-225FFCA35D4C@vt.edu> <20180926013329.GD31060@dastard> <20180926192426.472360ea@alans-desktop> <20180927013812.GF31060@dastard> <20180930151652.6975610c@alans-desktop> <20181001002521.GM31060@dastard> <20181001160442.47c798bc@alans-desktop> <20181001154459.GB5872@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: James Morris Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Alan Cox , TongZhang , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Wenbo Shen On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 06:08:16AM +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > If we /did/ replace CAP_SYS_ADMIN checking with a pile of LSM hooks, > > Not sure we'd need a pile of hooks, what about just "read" and "write" > storage admin? > > Or even two new capabilities along these lines, which we convert existing > CAP_SYS_ADMIN etc. to? So instead of having hundreds of management ioctls under CAP_SYS_ADMIN, we'd now have hundreds of non-storage ioctls under CAP_SYS_ADMIN and hundreds of storage ioctls under CAP_SYS_STORAGE_ADMIN? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that improves the situation w.r.t. locked down LSM configurations? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com