Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:49:56 -0700 From: Chris <bsd-lists@BSDforge.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Disallowing read() of a directory fd Message-ID: <34b419c93394e7b933b3edcb43244a4d@udns.ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2ABOcoK_4q4RvPcwYt2Q15qthzyt%2B3yJReO_EWO6Zie3Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 15 May 2020 13:49:54 -0400 Ed Maste emaste@freebsd=2Eorg said > On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 13:14, Chris <bsd-lists@bsdforge=2Ecom> wrote: > > > > But given the potential > > gains for all this, are trivial at best=2E In a purely observational view=2E=2E=2E >=20 > Some benefits of this change have already been discussed: > 1=2E It would have prevented, or at least significantly blunted, the > security issue described in FreeBSD-SA-19:10=2Eufs=2E > 2=2E It avoids problems caused by application assumptions=2E Applications that fail in this regard, are poorly designed, and need to step up=2E It's not up to (Free)BSD to bend to their lazyness=2E >=20 > On the other hand, arguments for allowing reads of directories: > 1=2E It's always been that way=2E > 2=2E File system developers and experts may use the ability for certain > special or unusual actions=2E >=20 > Making the change with a sysctl to control still allows the special > case use, and I'm glad that Kyle spent the time on this change=2E I too conceded to this perhaps being a reasonable approach=2E So long as it wasn't read-only=2E In the end; given that there was a non perceivable amount of noise on this over the last 40 some yrs=2E It hardly seemed worth/any effort(s)=2E -- observationally speaking; not emotionally :-) --Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34b419c93394e7b933b3edcb43244a4d>