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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:18:18 +0000
From:	David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>,
	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Meredydd Luff <meredydd@...atehouse.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.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)

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 04:28:52PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
>
>> The "magic open-once magic symlink" approach is really the cleanest
>> solution I can find. In the case where the interpreter does not open
>> the script, nothing terribly bad happens; the magic symlink just
>> sticks around until _exit or exec. In the case where the interpreter
>> opens it more than once, you get a failure, but as far as I know
>> existing interpreters don't do this, and it's arguably bad design. In
>> any case it's a caught error.
>
> You know what's cleaner than that?  git revert 27d6ec7ad
> It has just been merged; until 3.19 it's fair game for removal.
>
> And yes, I should've NAKed the damn thing loud and clear, rather than
> asking questions back then, getting no answers and letting it slip.
> Mea culpa.

Al, I'm sorry if I missed a question or concern of yours back in
October -- I certainly didn't intend to (that would be foolish indeed!).

[I thought the main open question was whether a dupfs
implementation would help with /dev/fd/ and /proc/ semantics, but I
had the (possibly incorrect) understanding that that was somewhat
orthogonal to the execveat implementation.]

Are there any changes/fixes/refactorings that I could do (especially
within the 3.19 timeframe) that would help mollify at all?

> Back then the procfs-free environments had been pushed as a serious argument
> in favour of merging the damn thing.  Now you guys turn around and say that
> we not only need procfs mounted, we need a yet-to-be-added kludge in there
> to cope with the actual intended uses.

Not me!
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ