Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports

[dann frazier <dannf@dannf.org>]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:00:40PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:55:19PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > @@ -505,8 +510,13 @@
> >  		mnt->file_mode = (oldmnt->file_mode & S_IRWXUGO) | S_IFREG;
> >  		mnt->dir_mode = (oldmnt->dir_mode & S_IRWXUGO) | S_IFDIR;
> >  
> > -		mnt->flags = (oldmnt->file_mode >> 9);
> > +		mnt->flags = (oldmnt->file_mode >> 9) | SMB_MOUNT_UID |
> > +			SMB_MOUNT_GID | SMB_MOUNT_FMODE | SMB_MOUNT_DMODE;
> >  	} else {
> > +		mnt->file_mode = mnt->dir_mode = S_IRWXU | S_IRGRP | S_IXGRP |
> > +						S_IROTH | S_IXOTH | S_IFREG;
> > +		mnt->dir_mode = mnt->dir_mode = S_IRWXU | S_IRGRP | S_IXGRP |
> > +						S_IROTH | S_IXOTH | S_IFDIR;
> >  		if (parse_options(mnt, raw_data))
> >  			goto out_bad_option;
> >  	}
> > 
> > 
> > See above ? mnt->dir_mode being assigned 3 times. It still *seems* to do the
> > expected thing like this but I wonder if the initial intent was
> > exactly this.
> 
> Wow - sorry about that, that's certainly a cut & paste error. But the
> end result appears to match current 2.6, which was the intent.
> 
> > Also, would not it be necessary to add "|S_IFLNK" to the file_mode ? Maybe
> > what I say is stupid, but it's just a guess.
> 
> I really don't know the correct answer to that, I was merely copying
> the 2.6 flags. 
> 
> [Still working on getting a 2.4 smbfs test system up...]

Ah, think I see the problem now:

--- kernel-source-2.4.27.orig/fs/smbfs/proc.c	2007-01-19 17:53:57.247695476 -0700
+++ kernel-source-2.4.27/fs/smbfs/proc.c	2007-01-19 17:49:07.480161733 -0700
@@ -1997,7 +1997,7 @@
 		fattr->f_mode = (server->mnt->dir_mode & (S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO)) | S_IFDIR;
 	else if ( (server->mnt->flags & SMB_MOUNT_FMODE) &&
 	          !(S_ISDIR(fattr->f_mode)) )
-		fattr->f_mode = (server->mnt->file_mode & (S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO)) | S_IFREG;
+		fattr->f_mode = (server->mnt->file_mode & (S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO)) | (fattr->f_mode & S_IFMT);
 
 }
 
Santiago: Thanks for reporting this - can you test this patch out on
your system and let me know if there are still any problems?

Willy: I'll do some more testing and get you a patch that fixes this
and the double assignment nonsense. Would you prefer a single patch or
two?

-- 
dann frazier

-
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/