From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: shmctl(SHM_STAT) vs. /proc/sysvipc/shm permissions discrepancies Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:13:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20171220091326.GC4831@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20171219094848.GE2787@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Cc: "Dr. Manfred Spraul" , Linux API , Andrew Morton , Al Viro , Kees Cook , Linus Torvalds , Mike Waychison , LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Wed 20-12-17 09:44:47, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > Hi Manfred, > > On 20 December 2017 at 09:32, Dr. Manfred Spraul > wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > On 12/19/2017 10:48 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> we have been contacted by our partner about the following permission > >> discrepancy > >> 1. Create a shared memory segment with permissions 600 with user A using > >> shmget(key, 1024, 0600 | IPC_CREAT) > >> 2. ipcs -m should return an output as follows: > >> > >> ------ Shared Memory Segments -------- > >> key shmid owner perms bytes nattch status > >> 0x58b74326 759562241 A 600 1024 0 > >> > >> 3. Try to read the metadata with shmctl(0, SHM_STAT,...) as user B. > >> 4. shmctl will return -EACCES > >> > >> The supper set information provided by shmctl can be retrieved by > >> reading /proc/sysvipc/shm which does not require read permissions > >> because it is 444. > >> > >> It seems that the discrepancy is there since ae7817745eef ("[PATCH] ipc: > >> add generic struct ipc_ids seq_file iteration") when the proc interface > >> has been introduced. The changelog is really modest on information or > >> intention but I suspect this just got overlooked during review. SHM_STAT > >> has always been about read permission and it is explicitly documented > >> that way. > > > > Are you sure that this patch changed the behavior? > > The proc interface is much older. > > Yes, I think that's correct. The /proc/sysvipc interface appeared in > 2.3.x, and AFAIK the behavior was already different from *_STAT back > then. I have probably misread the patch. It surely adds sysvipc_proc_fops, maybe there was a different implementation previously. I haven't checked. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org