* Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > * Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> @@ -1495,6 +1496,15 @@ static struct ctl_table fs_table[] = {
> >> #endif
> >> #endif
> >> {
> >> + .procname = "protected_sticky_symlinks",
> >> + .data = &protected_sticky_symlinks,
> >> + .maxlen = sizeof(int),
> >> + .mode = 0644,
> >> + .proc_handler = proc_dointvec_minmax,
> >> + .extra1 = &zero,
> >> + .extra2 = &one,
> >> + },
> >
> > Small detail:
> >
> > Might make sense to change the .mode to 0600, to make it
> > harder for unprivileged attack code to guess whether this
> > protection (and the resulting audit warning to the
> > administrator) is enabled on a system or not.
>
> Sure, I have no problem with that. In addition to this change,
> what's the best next step for this patch?
Al and Linus's call I guess. Maybe ask Andrew whether he'd put
it into -mm?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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
