>On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:53:44PM +0100,
viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>
>>Feh. That's far from the worst parts of the mess introduced by "hybrid"
>>crap - trivial sys_link(2) deadlocks triggerable by any user rate a bit
>>higher on the suckitude scale, IMO.
>>
>>
>
>While we are at it - consider these hybrids vetoed until
> a) sys_link()/sys_link() deadlock is fixed
> b) sys_link()/sys_rename() deadlock is fixed
> c) correctness proof of the locking scheme (in
>Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking) is updated to match the
>presense of the file/directory hybrids.
>
>Rationale: (a) and (b) - immediately exploitable by any user, (c) - "convince
>us that there's no more crap of that kind". IMO a reasonable request, seeing
>that the first look at the patches in -mm4 had turned up two exploits in
>that area, despite the *YEARS* of warnings about potential trouble and need
>to be careful there (actually, I've given Hans too much credit and assumed
>that link/link never happens since nobody would be dumb enough to provide
>->link() method for non-directory inodes; turns out that somebody is dumb
>enough and link/link is as exploitable as link/rename).
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
>
