Re: [PATCH v3] vfs: new O_NODE open flag

[Alan Cox]

> Well, yes.  That's true.  But I still don't think revoke() is the
> answer here.  For example even without the possibility of hard links
> there's still a race in udev in the following course of events:
> 
>   open("/dev/foo", O_RDWR)
>   ... open passes permission checks
>   ... driver gets unloaded
>   ... driver intended for other user gets loaded
>   ... open finds new driver

> What we really need is to revoke the *inode*, so that it cannot be
> opened any more.  Doing it with unlink() and revoke() and requiring
> that link() does not work on the filesystem is a poor and racy
> substitute for that.

Can't argue with that and going through the kernel logic I don't see
anything preventing an exploit based on that from working.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/