Hynek Schlawack <[email protected]> added the comment:
> I'm not a security guy, but: shouldn't the os.unlink call when it isn't a
> directory specify follow_symlinks=False?
os.unlink has no follow_symlinks argument. Imagine what would happen if
you‘d do a os.unlink() on a link and it would just remove the link
destination. :)
> And wouldn't it be safer if the os.rmdir() call also used dir_fd=?
Unfortunately, os.rmdir('.', dir_fd=topfd) doesn’t work. As in the worst
case it could delete only an empty directory, I think it’s fine.
> Additionally, I think you missed some stuff for shutil._use_fd_functions.
> Assuming I'm right on both of the above, you should also check:
> * os.listdir in os.supports_dir_fd
> * os.rmdir in os.supports_dir_fd
> * os.stat in os.supports_dir_fd
> * os.stat in os.supports_follow_symlinks
> * os.unlink in os.supports_follow_symlinks
Interestingly, os.listdir is not in os.supports_dir_fd although it works:
False
Will you fix it right away or shall I open a ticket?
> I'd spell that
> _use_fd_functions = ({os.listdir, os.open, os.rmdir, os.stat, os.unlink} <
> os.supports_dir_fd and
> {os.stat, os.unlink} <= os.supports_follow_symlinks)
It would be:
_use_fd_functions = ({os.listdir, os.open, os.stat, os.unlink} <=
os.supports_dir_fd and
os.stat in os.supports_follow_symlinks)
But currently can’t do.
> Finally, up to you, but I'd be tempted to change the "lstat" "and "fstat"
> calls to "stat" calls using the relevant parameters.
That's not 3.3 fodder IMHO, feel free to open an enhancement ticket.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue4489>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
