From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:33426 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727340AbeI1DoF (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 23:44:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 07:23:42 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris Subject: Re: Leaking Path in XFS's ioctl interface(missing LSM check) In-Reply-To: <20180927013812.GF31060@dastard> Message-ID: References: <5EF0D46A-C098-4B51-AD13-225FFCA35D4C@vt.edu> <20180926013329.GD31060@dastard> <20180926192426.472360ea@alans-desktop> <20180927013812.GF31060@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Dave Chinner Cc: Alan Cox , TongZhang , darrick.wong@oracle.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Wenbo Shen On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Dave Chinner wrote: > Sure, but there are so many CAP_SYS_ADMIN-only ioctls in the kernel > that have no LSM coverage that this is not an isolated problem that > people setting up such systems have to deal with. I could be missing something here, but all ioctls are mediated by LSM at a high level (security_file_ioctl). Some problematic ones are singled out at that point by LSMs for special handling. -- James Morris