Hi On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 7:17 AM, David Herrmann <dh.herrm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think it's safe to assume that any object you create is never >> world-accessible. So the worst you can get is 0600. > > Can you explain what you mean? I think that it's completely *unsafe* > to make this assumption unless you actually take some explicit action > to make sure it's correct.
Which kernel-interface creates world-writable objects if a reasonable umask like 022 is set? >> So if we now take >> your example, your patch doesn't fix the problem at all. Imagine two >> processes, $sender and $receiver. If the receiver runs as a different >> user as the sender, it cannot open /proc/self/fd/ writable due to >> 0600. So the only problematic case is if both run as the same user. >> However, in that case, the receiver can _always_ access >> /proc/$sender/fd/ and thus still gain writable access to the object, >> even if its own fd is read-only and your patch was applied. (ignoring >> the fact that they can kill() and ptrace each other..) > > Incorrect. That is exactly what my patch changes. Are you sure? Note I wrote /proc/$sender/fd/ not /proc/$receiver/fd/. The lookup on /proc/$sender/fd/ is done with the file of the _sender_, which obviously is writable. Thanks David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
