linux-kernel - Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT

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

Message-ID: <ef6ldq$uup$1@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu>
Date:	Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:14:02 +0000 (UTC)
From:	daw@...berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps

Stas Sergeev  wrote:
>Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>> The consensus has been to add the same checks to mprotect.  They were
>> not left out intentionally.
>
>But how about the anonymous mmap with PROT_EXEC set?

I'm curious about this, too.  ld-linux.so is a purely unprivileged
program.  It isn't setuid root.  Can you write a variant of ld-linux.so
that reads an executable into memory off of a partition mounted noexec and
then begins executing that code?  (perhaps by using anonymous mmap with
PROT_EXEC or some other mechanism) It sure seems like the answer would
be yes.  If so, I'm having a hard time understanding what guarantees
noexec gives you.  Isn't the noexec flag just a speedbump that raises
the bar a little but doesn't really prevent anything?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/