NetBSD Problem Report #43615

From www@NetBSD.org  Wed Jul 14 15:10:41 2010
Return-Path: <www@NetBSD.org>
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [204.152.190.11])
	by www.NetBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3317663BADB
	for <gnats-bugs@gnats.NetBSD.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:10:41 +0000 (UTC)
Message-Id: <20100714151040.C097463BACE@www.NetBSD.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:10:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: pooka@iki.fi
Reply-To: pooka@iki.fi
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Subject: kauth usage in tmpfs_lookup less than clear
X-Send-Pr-Version: www-1.0

>Number:         43615
>Category:       kern
>Synopsis:       kauth usage in tmpfs_lookup less than clear
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    kern-bug-people
>State:          closed
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Wed Jul 14 15:15:00 +0000 2010
>Closed-Date:    Thu May 25 05:12:03 +0000 2017
>Last-Modified:  Thu May 25 05:12:03 +0000 2017
>Originator:     Antti Kantee
>Release:        
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
kauth_authorize_vnode() uses *vpp before tmpfs_alloc_vp()
in tmpfs_lookup().

I'm also unsure why the distinction between dvp and vp
is irrelevant to kauth_authorize_vnode() (cf. VOP_ACCESS)
and why DELETE/RENAME branches should care about the
distinction enough to do it both ways.
>How-To-Repeat:
Go into fnord?-mode when reading tmpfs_lookup.  When it starts making
sense (???), notice a lot of weird things.
>Fix:

>Release-Note:

>Audit-Trail:
From: David Holland <dholland-bugs@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: kern/43615: kauth usage in tmpfs_lookup less than clear
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 23:43:03 +0000

 On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 03:15:01PM +0000, pooka@iki.fi wrote:
  > kauth_authorize_vnode() uses *vpp before tmpfs_alloc_vp()
  > in tmpfs_lookup().

 There is no such code any more...

  > I'm also unsure why the distinction between dvp and vp
  > is irrelevant to kauth_authorize_vnode() (cf. VOP_ACCESS)
  > and why DELETE/RENAME branches should care about the
  > distinction enough to do it both ways.

 not sure I follow but the logic present now seems ok to me.
 (modulo kauth's wonderful api)

 I assume this is because it's been cleaned out in the meantime; can
 you check?

 -- 
 David A. Holland
 dholland@netbsd.org

State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: dholland@NetBSD.org
State-Changed-When: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 23:45:49 +0000
State-Changed-Why:
I asked a question


State-Changed-From-To: feedback->closed
State-Changed-By: dholland@NetBSD.org
State-Changed-When: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:12:03 +0000
State-Changed-Why:
I got no answer


>Unformatted:

Home	PR Database Search