On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 10:46:24AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:12:57 -0700, dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Users have reported a symlink issue with my recent smbfs backport.
> >Turns out my backport overlooked a second 2.6 patch w/ the fix:
> > http://linux.bkb
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:12:57 -0700, dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Users have reported a symlink issue with my recent smbfs backport.
>Turns out my backport overlooked a second 2.6 patch w/ the fix:
> http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/?PAGE=cset&REV=419e7b76CdrmRG_NZ8LKj9DUUBGu1w
>
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:12:57PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> Users have reported a symlink issue with my recent smbfs backport.
> Turns out my backport overlooked a second 2.6 patch w/ the fix:
>
> http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/?PAGE=cset&REV=419e7b76CdrmRG_NZ8LKj9DUUBGu1w
Perfect. P
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 08:04:36AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
> Hi Dann,
> I'm running slackware-11, no smbfs package, 'smbmnt' is from samba-3.0.23c
> package with two tiny unrelated (?) patches:
Thanks again Grant. You might check out the patch I just submitted -
turns out this was an issue that
Users have reported a symlink issue with my recent smbfs backport.
Turns out my backport overlooked a second 2.6 patch w/ the fix:
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/?PAGE=cset&REV=419e7b76CdrmRG_NZ8LKj9DUUBGu1w
This is a backport of Haroldo Gamal's 2.6 patch that fixes the symlink
issue, an
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:19:37 -0700, dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:03:21AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> Hi Grant !
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:52:44AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
>> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:05:44 -0700, dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:03:21AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Grant !
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:52:44AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:05:44 -0700, dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:00:40PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> > >
Hi Dann,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:19:43AM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:50:47AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:03:21 +0100, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/other$ uname -r
> > 2.4.34b
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:50:47AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:03:21 +0100, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/other$ uname -r
> 2.4.34b
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/other$ mkdir test
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/other$ ln -s test testlink
> ln: crea
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:36:30 +0100, Santiago Garcia Mantinan <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > As you can see I now can see the symbolic links perfectly and they work as
>> > expected.
>> >
>> > In fact, this patch is working so well that it poses a security risk, as
>> > now
>> > the devices on
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:18:16 +0100, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Grant, just to be sure, are you really certain that you tried the fixed kernel
>?
>It is possible that you booted a wrong kernel during one of your tests. I'm
>intrigued by the fact that it changed nothing for you and t
> > As you can see I now can see the symbolic links perfectly and they work as
> > expected.
> >
> > In fact, this patch is working so well that it poses a security risk, as now
> > the devices on my /mnt/dev directory are not only seen as devices (like they
> > were seen on 2.4.33) but they also
Hi Santiago !
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:54:00AM +0100, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> I tried to replicate the problem at home during the weekend with my laptop,
> but I couldn't get it to show links with previous kernels, so I guess I had
> something different on my samba serve
Hi again!
I tried to replicate the problem at home during the weekend with my laptop,
but I couldn't get it to show links with previous kernels, so I guess I had
something different on my samba server or similar, I'm at the real machines
now so I have done the real tests and they look promising. I
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:03:21 +0100, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi Grant !
>
>On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:52:44AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:05:44 -0700, dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:00:40PM -0700, dann frazier wro
Hi Grant !
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:52:44AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:05:44 -0700, dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:00:40PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> >Ah, think I see the problem now:
> >
> >--- kernel-source-2.4.27.orig/fs/smbf
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:05:44 -0700, dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:00:40PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
>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/pr
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:05:44PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
(...)
> 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,
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_IFDI
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);
> +
Hi Dann !
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_IRWXUG
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:55:19PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Dann, do you still have your samba server ready to try to reproduce this
> problem ? Also, there are very suspect lines right there in the patch :
I can set it up again, hopefully have some feedback by tomorrow.
--
dann frazier
-
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:21:16 +0100, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi Grant !
>
>On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:09:57AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
>(...)
>> >} else {
>> >- mnt->file_mode = mnt->dir_mode = S_IRWXU | S_IRGRP | S_IXGRP |
>> >-
Hi Grant !
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:09:57AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
(...)
> > } 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 =
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:55:19 +0100, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello Santiago,
>
>On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 11:00:30AM +0100, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have discovered a problem with the changes applied to smbfs in 2.4.34 and
>> in the security backports like las
Hello Santiago,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 11:00:30AM +0100, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have discovered a problem with the changes applied to smbfs in 2.4.34 and
> in the security backports like last Debian's 2.4 kernel update these changes
> seem to be made to solve CVE-2006-5871 a
Hi!
I have discovered a problem with the changes applied to smbfs in 2.4.34 and
in the security backports like last Debian's 2.4 kernel update these changes
seem to be made to solve CVE-2006-5871 and they have broken symbolic links
and changed the way that special files (like devices) are seen.
F
27 matches
Mail list logo
