[lkml]   [1997]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: security warning
    Date (Alan Cox) writes:

    > > 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.
    > 2.0 does not follow the symlink for the last node of creat, and its
    > vital it doesnt.
    > ln -s /tmp/nosuchfile foofile
    > ./a.out
    > 2.0 -EEXIST
    > 2.1 creates it
    > touch /tmp/nosuchfile
    > ./a.out
    > 2.0 -EEXIST
    > 2.1 creates it
    > Test code
    > #include <stdio.h>
    > #include <fcntl.h>
    > int main(int argc,char *argv[])
    > {
    > if(open("foofile", O_EXCL|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, 0600)==-1)
    > perror("foofile");
    > return 0;
    > }
    > Alan

    According to the Single Unix Spec (2nd ed) (SUS) creat() is equivalent to

    open(path, O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, mode)

    but this is beside the point (unless there have been crossed wires).

    It is clear to me that open() with O_EXCL|OCREAT should *NOT* follow a
    final symlink. The open should fail on the existance test, since a
    file of the name specified exists (ok it isn't a regular file but so

    To quote SUS:

    If O_CREAT and O_EXCL are set, open() will fail if the file exists.

    It doesn't say unless that file is a symlink. No modern unix follows
    the link here and Linux shouldn't either.

    I think Irix 4.0 used to follow the symlink, but they fixed it before
    5.0 (3+ years ago). I think that HP-UX 7.x followed symlinks like
    this too, but I've not seen anything that old for at least 6 years.

    Jon Peatfield, DAMTP, Computer Officer, University of Cambridge
    Telephone: +44 1223 3 37852 Mail:

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.019 / U:111.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site