linux-kernel - Re: [patch] honour MNT

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: <1160296364.3000.167.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:32:44 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>
Cc:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()

On Sat, 2006-10-07 at 23:14 +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> >> Now, as the access(X_OK) is fixed, would it be
> >> feasible for ld.so to start using it?
> > Just must be kidding.  No access control can be reliably implemented at
> > userlevel.  There is no point starting something as stupid as this.
> But in this case how can you ever solve the
> problem of ld.so executing the binaries for which
> the user does not have an exec permission?
> Yes, the userspace apps usually should not enforce
> the kernel's access control,

correct

>  but ld.so seems to be
> the special case - it is a kernel helper after all,

in what way is ld.so special in ANY way?

-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com

-
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/