[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] vfs: new O_NODE open flag
> Well, yes.  That's true.  But I still don't think revoke() is the
> answer here. For example even without the possibility of hard links
> there's still a race in udev in the following course of events:
> open("/dev/foo", O_RDWR)
> ... open passes permission checks
> ... driver gets unloaded
> ... driver intended for other user gets loaded
> ... open finds new driver

> What we really need is to revoke the *inode*, so that it cannot be
> opened any more. Doing it with unlink() and revoke() and requiring
> that link() does not work on the filesystem is a poor and racy
> substitute for that.

Can't argue with that and going through the kernel logic I don't see
anything preventing an exploit based on that from working.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-07 18:43    [W:0.035 / U:65.836 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site