On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 12:00:22PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:10 PM Paul Moore [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:58 AM Christian Brauner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+static int do_statmount(struct stmt_state *s)
+{
+   struct statmnt *sm = &s->sm;
+   struct mount *m = real_mount(s->mnt);
+   size_t copysize = min_t(size_t, s->bufsize, sizeof(*sm));
+   int err;
+
+   err = security_sb_statfs(s->mnt->mnt_root);
+   if (err)
+           return err;
+
+   if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) &&
+       !is_path_reachable(m, m->mnt.mnt_root, &s->root))
+           return -EPERM;

In order to be consistent with our typical access control ordering,
please move the security_sb_statfs() call down to here, after the
capability checks.

I've moved the security_sb_statfs() calls accordingly.

Okay, good.  Did I miss a comment or a patch where that happened?  I
looked over the patchset and comments yesterday and didn't recall
seeing anything about shuffling the access control checks.

Gentle ping on this.  I'm asking because I know there have been issues
lately with the lists and some mail providers and I want to make sure
I'm not missing anything, I double checked lore again and didn't see
anything there either, but I might be missing it.

Sorry, I'm traveling so I just didn't see this. Please see:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git/commit/?h=vfs.mount&id=dc14fa93943918bee898d75d7ae72fc3623ce9ce
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git/commit/?h=vfs.mount&id=de17643cbf9b0282990bb9cf0e0bf01710c9ec03

I've folded the fixup into these patches. I probably just accidently
dropped the diff from my reply.