linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] allow execve'ing "/proc/self/exe" even if /proc is not mounted

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: <8bd0f97a0906260626y36190ca9ia769c623d4c545d3@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:26:30 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow execve'ing "/proc/self/exe" even if /proc is not 
	mounted

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 04:00, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> With this patch, it is possible to execute /proc/self/exe
>>> even if /proc is not mounted. In the below example,
>>> ./sh is a static shell binary:
>>
>> What if the user has procfs mounted somewherelse, what if they are in a
>> chroot where you don't want them to patch the binary and re-exec it ?
>>
>> It would be far far cleaner for NOMMU to have a NOMMU private "reexec()"
>> call that didn't rely on procfs or hacking names into the kernel.
>>
>> So NAK
>
> I am ok with it. Are other people ok with adding a syscall
> just for this purpose? Al?

please try a custom binfmt first
-mike
--
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/