OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I was thinking about this and kept telling myself I was going to test v2
before I ack/nak. Clearly we shouldn't for the dropping of SUID if the
process didn't have permission to change the ATTR_SIZE.
Acked-by: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx>
BTW, Do you know why doesn't security modules fix the handling of
do_truncate() (i.e. ATTR_MODE | ATTR_SIZE). And why doesn't it allow to
pass ATTR_FORCE for it?
I'm not sure what you mean. I understood ATTR_FORCE to mean 'I am magic
and get to override all security checks." Which is why nothing should
ever be using ATTR_FORCE with things other than SUID.
I guess we could somehow force logic into the LSM to make it only apply
to SUID and friends but I'm not sure it buys us anything.
Yes, I think it's good way. Don't we want to do the following?
if (permission check of job)
return error;
if (do job at once)
return error;
But currently way is,
if (permission check of first part)
return error
if (do first part of job)
return error
if (permission check of second part)
return error
if (do second part of job)
return error
So, if second part was error, we may want to undo the job of first part
in theory. But, to undo is just hard and strange.
Yeah, the problem is currently we don't have such wrappers, only
notify_change(). :-/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
