Re: [PATCH] cifs: send real uid of initiating process to upcall instead of mount uid

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:40:19 -0500
> Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > be able to trick the kernel into using a credcache to which the user
> > doesn't
> > > have access by setting the right uid= option on a mount?
> > ...
> > >  Seems saner and more secure to me.
> >
> > Are you saying "saner" to rename "uid=" for the purposes of the upcall...
> > not
> > just the change to pass the "uid of the process that initiated the
> upcall"
> > (not
> > the "owner of the files" uid) (If so, I agree)
> >
> >
>
> I'm not sure I follow what you're saying...
>
> I'm saying that we should pass the real uid of the process that
> initiated the upcall to the upcall. There's no point in passing the uid
> of the process that owns the files on the mount to the upcall.
>

Yes - I was agreeing on this :)


>
> I don't see the point of renaming the uid= "key" here. Can you
> elaborate as to why you think it would be good to do so?
>

I thought that you had also noted that using "uid" to mean more than
one thing on mount was confusing, and thus could be confusing
to also keep the same name in cifs.upcall.  If cifs.upcall does
not care about the "default file owner" but does care about
the process that initiated the upcall - seems like it would make
sense to call it something distinct to eliminate any
possible confusion.




Thanks,

Steve

_______________________________________________
linux-cifs-client mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-cifs-client