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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 14:31:16 -0600
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <>
To:     Kees Cook <>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <>, Jann Horn <>,
        Ariadne Conill <>,
        Michael Kerrisk <>,
        Christian Brauner <>,
        Rich Felker <>,
        Alexander Viro <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/binfmt_elf: Add padding NULL when argc == 0

Kees Cook <> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 08:08:14PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:58:39AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > We can't mutate argc; it'll turn at least some userspace into an
>> > infinite loop:
>> >
>> How does that become an infinite loop?  We obviously wouldn't mutate
>> argc in the caller, just the callee.
> Oh, sorry, I misread. It's using /bin/true, not argv[0] (another bit of
> code I found was using argv[0]). Yeah, {"", NULL} could work.
>> Also, there's a version of this where we only mutate argc if we're
>> executing a setuid program, which would remove the privilege
>> escalation part of things.
> True; though I'd like to keep the logic as non-specialized as possible.
> I don't like making stuff conditional on privilege boundaries if we can
> make it always happen.

Which I think means turning the argc == 0 case into { "", NULL }.
I think we can always do that, and it is already valid in userspace.

The only case I can imagine breaking would be an explicitly testing
for argc == 0 and behaving completely differently if that is passed
to the program.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists