On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Takashi Iwai <ti...@suse.de> wrote: > At Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:30:09 +0800, > Ming Lei wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:01:50PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >> >> It isn't a good pratice to request firmware via relative path, also >> >> might have security issue, so don't do it. >> > >> > What would the security issue be? You are letting the person who build >> > the kernel specify this, so they can put whatever they want in here, a >> > '..' isn't going to keep them from being able to do "bad" things if they >> > really want to. >> >> In VM case, guest kernel might access host filesystem files via this trick, >> but not sure if it is possible. >> >> Takashi, could you explain the security issue of relative path? > > Well, I don't know, too. My original question was what happens if you > pass a relative path to firmware_class.fw_path_para module option > (or the new kconfig)...
OK, so please ignore the patch. Thanks -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/