Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1579897
| From | Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v27 03/21] vfs: Add MAY_DELETE_SELF and MAY_DELETE_CHILD permission flags |
| Date | 2017-02-13 16:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tar35-5BW-39@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sr4OZ-6OW-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sr4OZ-6OW-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sJSNj-29y-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Andreas Gruenbacher > <agruenba@redhat.com> wrote: >> Normally, deleting a file requires MAY_WRITE access to the parent >> directory. With richacls, a file may be deleted with MAY_DELETE_CHILD access >> to the parent directory or with MAY_DELETE_SELF access to the file. >> >> To support that, pass the MAY_DELETE_CHILD mask flag to inode_permission() >> when checking for delete access inside a directory, and MAY_DELETE_SELF >> when checking for delete access to a file itself. >> >> The MAY_DELETE_SELF permission overrides the sticky directory check. > > And MAY_DELETE_SELF seems totally inappropriate to any kind of rename, > since from the point of view of the inode we are not doing anything at > all. The modifications are all in the parent(s), and that's where the > permission checks need to be. > >> @@ -2780,14 +2780,20 @@ static int may_delete_or_replace(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *victim, >> BUG_ON(victim->d_parent->d_inode != dir); >> audit_inode_child(dir, victim, AUDIT_TYPE_CHILD_DELETE); >> >> - error = inode_permission(dir, mask); >> + error = inode_permission(dir, mask | MAY_WRITE | MAY_DELETE_CHILD); >> + if (!error && check_sticky(dir, inode)) >> + error = -EPERM; >> + if (error && IS_RICHACL(inode) && >> + inode_permission(inode, MAY_DELETE_SELF) == 0 && >> + inode_permission(dir, mask) == 0) >> + error = 0; > > Why is MAY_WRITE missing here? Everything not aware of > MAY_DELETE_SELF (e.g. LSMs) will still need MAY_WRITE otherwise this > is going to be a loophole. Hmm, this has indeed slipped me. Should be fixed in the version I've just posted. Many thanks for the review. Andreas
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v27 03/21] vfs: Add MAY_DELETE_SELF and MAY_DELETE_CHILD permission flags Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> - 2017-02-13 16:50 +0100
csiph-web