linux-ext4 - [Bug 203585] Feature Request for filesystems that support noexec/exec mount options

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bug-203585-13602-cSpE0mTG0w@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
Date:   Sun, 12 May 2019 18:12:14 +0000
From:   bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
To:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [Bug 203585] Feature Request for filesystems that support
 noexec/exec mount options

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203585

--- Comment #2 from Thomas Spear (Speeddymon@...il.com) ---
Thanks for updating so quickly.

An acceptable workaround for the uid mapping would be to just list the uids in
the fstab.

I appreciate the suggestion to modify the web app, and yes it would be great if
we could. Unfortunately its a 3rd party app with vendor support, and its hard
coded to write to the root of /tmp -- we can't even get it to write to a
folder, though I am considering suggesting a chrooted environment for the app
so that we can virtualize the access to /tmp that way.

I saw mention of getting around it by using bind mounts over on stack overflow,
but that would also require the ability to make it write somewhere other than
/tmp.

The app team is trying to push for acceptance of the risk of removing noexec
from /tmp (RHEL7 defaults to noexec for /tmp so its a change to the current
policy), but everything I've ever understood about /tmp being world writable
tells me that noexec on /tmp is a sane default and should be left that way.

Anyways, I could see having noexec_user= for exec filesystems being useful in a
variety of circumstances, but the rest of the request is a bit niche, so I
don't guess it would get much support from the community.

Thanks again for the help.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.