On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 07:18 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:50:28AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 20:09 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > There are no capability checks on sysfs files right now, so these all > > > need to be fixed. > > > > That statement is true but irrelevant, isn't it? There can't be > > capabilities within sysfs files because the system that does them has no > > idea what the capabilities would be. If there were capabilities checks, > > they'd have to be in the implementing routines. > > Ah, you are correct, sorry for the misunderstanding. > > > I think the questions are twofold: > > > > 1. Did anyone actually check for capabilities before assuming world > > writeable files were wrong? > > I do not think so as the majority (i.e. all the ones that I looked at) > did no such checks. OK, as long as someone checked, I'm happy. > > 2. Even if there aren't any capabilities checks in the implementing > > routines, should there be (are we going the separated > > capabilities route vs the monolithic root route)? > > I think the general consensus is that we go the monolithic root route > for sysfs files in that we do not allow them to be world writable. > > Do you have any exceptions that you know of that do these checks? Heh, I didn't call our security vacillations a dizzying ride for nothing. I know the goal once was to try to run a distro without root daemons (which is what required the capabilities stuff). I'm actually trying to avoid the issue ... I just want to make sure that people who care aren't all moving in different directions. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
