linux-kernel March 2009 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > linux-kernel archives
linux-kernel: Re: Ответ: VFS, NFS security bug? Should CAP_

Re: Ответ: VFS, NFS security bug? Should CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE be added to CAP_FS_MASK?

From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields_at_nospam>
Date: Wed Mar 18 2009 - 16:57:30 GMT
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>


On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:47:12AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Ok, thanks for time. It's all pretty clear to me now:
>
> CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE need to be added to the CAP_FS_MASK
> because, in 2.0 timeframe, fsuid==0 gave you those privileges.
>
> xattrs didn't exist back then, so the setting of security.* and
> trusted.* xattrs doesn't need to be enabled by fsuid==0. So really
> CAP_SETFCAP also doesn't need to be added to CAP_FS_MASK either.

Are we left with any simple one-sentence description of what CAP_FS_MASK means? (Other than just a particular list of bits?) I'm just wondering how additional bits will get decided in the future.

> I'll send out a patch later today for 2.6, unless Igor wants to
> do it (since he's the one who found this originally).

OK, apologies if I jumped the gun on the nfsd-specific patch--I lost track of this discussion, thought it might take longer, and wanted to get the one patch into 2.6.30. Feel free to revert that, or ignore it and leave it to me to revert it afterwards, as convenient....

--b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html