Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:23:58 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: Tighten up linkat(..., AT_EMPTY_PATH) | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: > > Does this work for the procfs case? As far as I understand it (which > isn't saying much), it goes through the symlink-following path.
Right. The /proc case is still separate, and we really should do something about that too. But again, I don't think I_LINKABLE is the thing to use there either. We probably should tighten up the magic /proc follow-link a lot.
> What if we added another field to struct nameidata that's indicates > what restrictions need to be enforced when following magical symlinks > and then enforcing them when nd_jump_link gets used. (There are only > two of these, both in procfs.)
Yes, I think that might be just the kind of thing to do. Except some tightening could well be quite regardless of any extra flags.
Linus
| |