[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4528FBA5.9010701@aknet.ru>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:22:45 +0400
From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>
To: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
Hello.
Jesper Juhl wrote:
> As I see it, what we can resonably do with 'noexec' is
> - make execve() fail.
Done.
> - make access(), faccessat() return EACCESS for files stored on
> 'noexec' filesystems.
Done now in -mm.
> - make mmap(...PROT_EXEC...) fail for files stored on 'noexec' filesystems.
Even for MAP_PRIVATE?
But in what way the "noexec" is better than "chmod -x",
which does _not_ make the PROT_EXEC to fail?
> Since we can't really prevent things like perl/php/bash/tcl/whatever
> scripts from being executed/interpreted from there with this
> mechanism, let's not worry about that. Leave that for things like
> SELinux to deal with.
Exactly, but isn't it the same with mmap? (MAP_PRIVATE at least)
Since you can't prevent the prog to simply read() the data into
an anonymously mapped space, you can just as well leave that to
selinux too.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists