linux-kernel - Is it legal to return positive value when do

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

Message-Id: <201009302207.IJB81715.tFSLFHFOVJOOMQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:	Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:07:34 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Is it legal to return positive value when do_execve() succeeds?

Hello.

I was browsing do_execve() and noticed that do_execve() will return positive
return value if "struct linux_binfmt"->load_binary() returned positive return
value. So far, all in-tree "struct linux_binfmt" users seem to return 0 on
success and negative return value on failure. But search_binary_handler()
itself is designed to allow positive return value on successful execve().

--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -1413,6 +1413,9 @@ int do_execve(const char * filename,
 	free_bprm(bprm);
 	if (displaced)
 		put_files_struct(displaced);
+	/* Just for testing. */
+	if (!retval)
+		retval = 1;
 	return retval;

 out:

With a patch above (on x86 CentOS 5.5 with 2.6.36-rc6 kernel),
a few programs failed to work properly.

  udevd-event[$PID]: run_program: '$PROGRAM' abnormal exit

Is it legal to return positive value when do_execve() succeeds?

Regards.
--
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/