[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 18:26:38 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, Joe Korty <joe.korty@...r.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: add link restrictions
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:05:26PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> + err = may_follow_link(&link);
>>> + if (unlikely(err))
>>> + break;
>>
>> No. This is definitely wrong - you are leaking dentries and vfsmount here.
>
> What should I do to avoid the leak? I thought it was avoiding the need
> to call put_link because it aborts before calling follow_link.
Does this need "path_put(&nd->path);" added to the abort case?
If so, is this also missing from follow_link()'s final "return error",
or is it the responsibility of dentry->d_inode->i_op->follow_link() to
have already called path_put()?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
