[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87oaq6oypl.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:09:10 -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 Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 04:27:23PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 04:14:57AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>>
>> >> Except that if your interpreter does stat(2) (or access(2), or getxattr(2),
>> >> etc.) before bothering with open(2), you'll get screwed.
>> >
>> > Yes, but I think that would be very bad interpreter design.
>> > stat/getxattr/access/whatever followed by open is always a TOCTOU
>> > race. The correct sequence of actions is always open followed by
>> > fstat/fgetxattr/...
>>
>> Sigh. I think everyone who has looked at this has been blind.
>>
>> If userspace is reasonable all we have to do is fix /proc/self/exe
>> for shell scripts to point at the actual script,
>> and then pass /proc/self/exe on the shell scripts command line.
>>
>> At a practical level we have to worry about backwards compability and
>> chroot jails. But the existence of a clean implementation with
>> /proc/self/exe serves a proof of concept that it would not be too
>> difficult. When someone cares enough to implement it.
>
> Is /proc/self/exe a "magic symlink" that's bound to the inode, or just
> a regular symlink? In the latter case it defeats the whole purpose of
> using O_EXEC fds and fexecve rather than pathnames.
In implementation /proc/self/exe is a named rather than a numbered file
descriptor. Essentially when loading an elf executable the file
descriptor is duped to the name /proc/self/exe. The implementation
otherwise is the same as /proc/self/fd/N.
The downside of course is that I expect if we were actually to change
/proc/self/exe from to point at the script instead of the shell some
piece of software somewhere would come melting down. I am totally not
ready to consider that kind of mine field today.
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