* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >> The larger point though is that this is just one of innumerable attack
> > >> routes for anyone with the ability to make the server do filesystem reads
> > >> or writes of his choosing. If you think that's something you can safely
> > >> give to people you don't trust enough to make them superusers, you are
> > >> wrong, and I don't particularly want to spend the next ten years trying
> > >> to wrap band-aids around your misjudgment.
> > >
> > > ... but that doesn't necessarily address this point.
> >
> > I think the question is "just how innumerable are those attack
> > routes"? So, we can prevent a symlink from being used via O_NOFOLLOW.
> > But what about hard links?
>
> Users cannot create a hard link to a file they can't already access.
The specifics actually depend on (on Linux, at least) the value of
/proc/sys/fs/protected_hardlink, which has existed in upstream since 3.6
(not sure about the RHEL kernels, though I expect they've incorporated
it also at some point along the way).
There is a similar /proc/sys/fs/protected_symlinks control for dealing
with the same kind of time-of-check / time-of-use issues that exist with
symlinks.
At least on my Ubuntu 14.04 systems, these are both set to '1'.
Thanks,
Stephen
