From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756130Ab3EYM4W (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 May 2013 08:56:22 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]:33356 "EHLO mail-ee0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755217Ab3EYM4T (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 May 2013 08:56:19 -0400 Message-ID: <51A0B4E7.4030307@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 14:56:07 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: James Bottomley , Jens Axboe , lkml , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: PING^7 (was Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO command whitelist (CVE-2012-4542)) References: <20130522221737.GA12339@mtj.dyndns.org> <519DC926.4000106@redhat.com> <20130523090222.GA26592@mtj.dyndns.org> <519DE5AD.7080303@redhat.com> <20130524014405.GB16882@mtj.dyndns.org> <519F12FF.6090809@redhat.com> <1369456502.5008.5.camel@dabdike> <20130525083713.GA6179@mtj.dyndns.org> <51A09D1D.3040706@redhat.com> <20130525124814.GA8489@mtj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20130525124814.GA8489@mtj.dyndns.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Il 25/05/2013 14:48, Tejun Heo ha scritto: >>> * Merge the patch to give out SG_IO access along with write access, so >>> > > the use cases which want to give out SG_IO access can do so >>> > > explicitly and be fully responsible for the device. This makes >>> > > sense to me. If one wants to be allowed to issue raw commands to >>> > > the hardware, one takes the full responsibility. >> > >> > That's not possible; it would make it impossible to do things like using >> > a privileged helper to open the file and passing it back via SCM_RIGHTS >> > to an unprivileged program (running as the user). This is the ptrace >> > attack that you mentioned. > I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm describing the same > thing you implemented and posted. Ok, I think we need a rewind. I'll try to post what I mean next week. Paolo