[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] vfs: add NOFOLLOW flag to umount(2)
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:21:00PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:15:53PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > - renamed flag to UMOUNT_NOFOLLOW
> > > - added UMOUNT_UNUSED for feature detection
> >
> > Umm, why? MNT_ certainly isn't the best naming for unmount flags,
> > but switching convention after we had a few doesn't make any sense.
> Actually, I've got more interesting question: what's being attempted
> there? Is that just a "let's protect ourselves against somebody feeding
> us an untrusted symlink"? I'm not sure if it makes much sense; if we
> are dealing with pathnames on untrusted fs, there's nothing to stop the
> attacker from having /mnt/foo/dir (originally containing a mountpoint
> at /mnt/foo/dir/usr) killed and replaced with a symlink to /, making any
> code that does umount() on such pathnames vulnerable as hell anyway.

It is trivial to check the path up to the mountpoint (chdir + getcwd).
But doing that on the mountpoint will make it busy, so NOFOLLOW is
really needed there.


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-22 21:33    [W:0.037 / U:7.360 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site