On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:10 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:58 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > +static int do_statmount(struct stmt_state *s)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct statmnt *sm = &s->sm;
> > > > + struct mount *m = real_mount(s->mnt);
> > > > + size_t copysize = min_t(size_t, s->bufsize, sizeof(*sm));
> > > > + int err;
> > > > +
> > > > + err = security_sb_statfs(s->mnt->mnt_root);
> > > > + if (err)
> > > > + return err;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) &&
> > > > + !is_path_reachable(m, m->mnt.mnt_root, &s->root))
> > > > + return -EPERM;
> > >
> > > In order to be consistent with our typical access control ordering,
> > > please move the security_sb_statfs() call down to here, after the
> > > capability checks.
> >
> > I've moved the security_sb_statfs() calls accordingly.
>
> Okay, good. Did I miss a comment or a patch where that happened? I
> looked over the patchset and comments yesterday and didn't recall
> seeing anything about shuffling the access control checks.
Gentle ping on this. I'm asking because I know there have been issues
lately with the lists and some mail providers and I want to make sure
I'm not missing anything, I double checked lore again and didn't see
anything there either, but I might be missing it.
--
paul-moore.com
