Re: [PATCH 3.16 208/245] namei: allow restricted O_CREAT of FIFOs and regular files

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2020-04-24 at 15:52 +0200, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:07:15AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > 3.16.83-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> I do.  This patch is currently known-buggy, see this thread:
> 
> https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/01/28/2
> 
> It is (partially) fixed with these newer commits in 5.5 and 5.5.2:
> 
> commit d0cb50185ae942b03c4327be322055d622dc79f6
> Author: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Sun Jan 26 09:29:34 2020 -0500
> 
>     do_last(): fetch directory ->i_mode and ->i_uid before it's too late
>     
>     may_create_in_sticky() call is done when we already have dropped the
>     reference to dir.
>     
>     Fixes: 30aba6656f61e (namei: allow restricted O_CREAT of FIFOs and regular files)
>     Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> commit d76341d93dedbcf6ed5a08dfc8bce82d3e9a772b
> Author: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Sat Feb 1 16:26:45 2020 +0000
> 
>     vfs: fix do_last() regression
>     
>     commit 6404674acd596de41fd3ad5f267b4525494a891a upstream.
[...]
> At least inclusion of the above fixes is mandatory for any backports.

I know, and those are the next 2 patches in the series.

> Also, I think no one has fixed the logic of may_create_in_sticky() so
> that it wouldn't unintentionally apply the "protection" when the file
> is neither a FIFO nor a regular file (something I found and mentioned in
> the oss-security posting above).
[...]
> I think the implementation of may_create_in_sticky() should be rewritten
> such that it'd directly correspond to the textual description in the
> comment above.  As we've seen, trying to write the code "more optimally"
> resulted in its logic actually being different from the description.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think backporting known-so-buggy code is a bad idea.

I can see that it's not quite right, but does it matter in practice? 
Directories and symlinks are handled separately; sockets can't be
opened anyway; block and character devices wonn't normally appear in a
sticky directory.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Knowledge is power.  France is bacon.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux