From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756083Ab0ANVpc (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:45:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755489Ab0ANVpb (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:45:31 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com ([209.85.218.227]:43421 "EHLO mail-bw0-f227.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755418Ab0ANVp3 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:45:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100114210743.GE3814@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <1263388596.26006.1.camel@yio.site> <20100114205304.GC3814@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20100114210743.GE3814@khazad-dum.debian.net> From: Kay Sievers Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:45:12 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Driver-Core: devtmpfs - reset inode permissions before unlinking To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Cc: Greg KH , linux-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 22:07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Kay Sievers wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 21:53, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh >> wrote: >> > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Kay Sievers wrote: >> >> across the device lifetime by creating hardlinks, in the unusual case >> >> that there is a user-writable directory on the same filesystem. >> > >> > Does a tmpfs mounted in /dev/shm count as "user-writable directory on the >> > same filesystem" ? >> >> Not if it's a separate tmpfs mount, which is recommended. Only if it's >> just a plain directory on the /dev filesystem. > > Yeah, I noticed the abusurdity of my question when I re-read it, thanks for > being kind in the reply. > > That said, this does fix a possible security problem when a misconfigured > system is used, and the fix looks rather simple...  Can it go to -stable > eventually, even if it is months in the future, after it gets some testing > in .34 ?   Minor problems are still problems... Sure, we could do that. There is some stuff in the current .33 kernel, which could go into .32-stable too, if that's useful. Kay