[PATCH 0/4] Relocate execve() sanity checks
keescook at chromium.org
Tue May 19 17:56:08 UTC 2020
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:41:27PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org> writes:
> > and given the LSM hooks, I think the noexec check is too late as well.
> > (This is especially true for the coming O_MAYEXEC series, which will
> > absolutely need those tests earlier as well -- the permission checking
> > is then in the correct place: during open, not exec.) I think the only
> > question is about leaving the redundant checks in fs/exec.c, which I
> > think are a cheap way to retain a sense of robustness.
> The trouble is when someone passes through changes one of the permission
> checks for whatever reason (misses that they are duplicated in another
> location) and things then fail in some very unexpected way.
Do you think this series should drop the "late" checks in fs/exec.c?
Honestly, the largest motivation for me to move the checks earlier as
I've done is so that other things besides execve() can use FMODE_EXEC
during open() and receive the same sanity-checking as execve() (i.e the
O_MAYEXEC series -- the details are still under discussion but this
cleanup will be needed regardless).
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive