[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877fwvy7ln.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:20:04 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Meredydd Luff <meredydd@...atehouse.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv10 man-pages 5/5] execveat.2: initial man page for execveat(2)
Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 08:56:26PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:48:15PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > I think this is a case that needs to be fixed, though it's hard. The
>> > normal correct usage for fexecve is to always pass an O_CLOEXEC file
>> > descriptor, and the caller can't really be expected to know whether
>> > the file is a script or not. We discussed workarounds before and one
>> > idea I proposed was having fexecve provide a "one open only" magic
>> > symlink in /proc/self/ to pass to the interpreter. It would behave
>> > like an O_PATH file descriptor magic symlink in /proc/self/fd, but
>> > would automatically cease to exist on the first open (at which point
>> > the interpreter would have a real O_RDONLY file descriptor for the
>> > underlying file).
>>
>> For fsck sake, folks, if you have bloody /proc, you don't need that shite
>> at all! Just do execve on /proc/self/fd/n, and be done with that.
>>
>> The sole excuse for merging that thing in the first place had been
>> "would anybody think of children^Wsclerotic^Whardened environments
>> where they have no /proc at all".
>
> That doesn't work. With O_CLOEXEC, /proc/self/fd/n is already gone at
> the time the interpreter runs, whether you're using fexecveat or
> execve with "/proc/self/fd/n" to implement POSIX fexecve(). That's the
> problem. This breaks the intended idiom for fexecve.
O_CLOEXEC with a #! intepreter can not work. If the file descriptor is
closed a #! interpreter can not open it. So I don't know why or how
you want that to work but it is nonsense.
This certainly does not break the intended usage for execveat.
Eric
--
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