[lkml]   [1997]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: security warning
Isn't this JUST the kind of thing that belongs as a switch in /proc/sys

On 16 Dec, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Alan Cox wrote:
>> One problem is it follows it for a lot more than it used to. Following symlinks
>> on creation is bad. It causes a lot of "symlink traps". 2.0 stamps on the
>> symlink and tough the hacker loses.
> No, 2.0.x also followed symlinks for create(), I'm fairly certain. It used
> to be pretty painful to do, actually, but others did it, and I think
> people even pointed to programs that wanted it done.
> But yes, 2.1.x would tend to do it more aggressively for other things than
> just create().
>> I'll have a look at the stuff if its supposed to be easy to fix 8)
> It really should be a matter of just making a 1 (follow_links) a 0.

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.078 / U:2.728 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site