Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, maybe. Whitelists are hard to get right, and it would be a bit ugly
> having to check the name in both add_key() and join_session_keyring(). And
> hopefully that would be everything?
Actually, having thought about it some more, I think your way is better.
> I think there's also a more fundamental problem with how keyring names work.
> If you try to join a keyring with a certain name, how are you supposed to
> know which one you're joining? There can be many keyrings that have the
> same name; and any unprivileged user can create a keyring with the name, and
> they can grant everyone SEARCH permission so that their keyring can be
> joined. So it can be the case that a user is wanting to join a particular
> keyring, but they actually get a keyring that a malicious user has crafted
> for them...
Yeah. With hindsight, I think that firstly, joinable keyrings really need
enablement and, secondly, thread, process, session, user and user-session need
to have to be non-manually-creatable.
However, I'm not sure they can be renamed, since they're searchable and
joinable by name and fixing this might break something in userspace (though I
should hope that this is unlikely).
> Also, if period ('.') is meant to be the reserved character in keyring names,
> why do most of the special names actually start with underscore ('_')?
'.' wasn't a reserved char originally.
David