lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5] Introduce support for Systems Management Driver over WMI for Dell Systems
From
Date
Hi,

On 10/1/20 9:37 PM, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
>>> +
>>> + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>>> + return -EPERM;
>>
>> Sorry for not addressing this during earlier reviews, but why is this
>> check here. Is read-only access to the settings by normal users
>> considered harmful ?
>>
>
> The best answer I can give is that this is exposing data to a user that
> previously they would have needed either physical access or root access
> to see. And even if they had physical access they may have needed a
> BIOS admin password to get "into" setup. Exposing it directly to everyone
> subverts the previous access limitations to the data.
>
> Some of the settings are certainly more sensitive than others, so I don't
> feel it's appropriate for the kernel to perform this arbitration.

I see, IMHO it would be better to just set the file permissions for
current_value to 600 then, then it will be much clearer to users
why they are getting -EPERM. This is e.g. also done for some of
the more sensitive DMI strings like e.g. serial-numbers:

[hans@x1 ~]$ ls -l /sys/class/dmi/id/board_serial
-r-------- 1 root root 4096 Oct 9 09:36 /sys/class/dmi/id/board_serial

You can do this by changing:

__ATTR_RW(current_value);

to:

__ATTR_RW_MODE(current_value, 0600);

>>> +static int validate_enumeration_input(int instance_id, const char *buf)
>>> +{
>>> + char *options, *tmp, *p;
>>> + int ret = -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + options = tmp =
>> kstrdup(wmi_priv.enumeration_data[instance_id].possible_values,
>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!options)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + while ((p = strsep(&options, ";")) != NULL) {
>>> + if (!*p)
>>> + continue;
>>> + if (!strncasecmp(p, buf, strlen(p))) {
>>
>> So using strncasecmp here is usually done to get rid of the '\n' but it
>> is a bit finicky and as such you got it wrong here, of say "Enabled"
>> is a valid value and the user passes "EnabledFooBar" then this
>> will get accepted because the first 7 chars match. Since you
>> are already dealing with the \n in the caller you can just drop the
>> "n" part of the strncasecmp to fix this.
>>
>> Also are you sure you want a strcasecmp here ? That makes the compare
>> case-insensitive. So IOW that means that enabled and ENABLED are also
>> acceptable.
>
> That's correct, the firmware will interpret ENABLED and enabled as the same
> thing. It will also do further validation of the input.

Ok, strcasecmp it is then.

Regards,

Hans

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-09 09:48    [W:0.085 / U:0.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site