linux-kernel - Re: Bad rpath in cpupower with 4.0-rcX

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: <3001692.z661NIszxI@skinner>
Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:53:57 +0100
From:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	"sriram@...irs.net.in" <sriram@...irs.net.in>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bad rpath in cpupower with 4.0-rcX

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:30:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 08:33:54 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org> 
wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > 
> > > Commit 5c1de006e8e66 (cpupower Makefile change to help run the tool
> > > without 'make install') added an rpath to the cpupower binary.  From
> > > what I can understand, this is to make it easier to run cpupower from
> > > the local build directory without having to run make install.  It does
> > > accomplish that, but it also leaves the binary with the rpath in it
> > > which is considered bad practice.  It also causes cpupower to fail in
> > > rpmbuild with the following error:
> > > 
> > > ERROR   0004: file '/usr/bin/cpupower' contains an insecure rpath './'
> > > in [./]
> > > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.A6u26r (%install)
> > > 
> > >     Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.A6u26r (%install)
> > > 
> > > I understand the want for eased development, but couldn't people just
> > > set LD_LIBRARY_PATH instead?
> > 
> > No comments on this?  Should I just send a revert patch instead?

I agree adding . as library path was not a good idea.
This probably is also a potential security issue.

What I do is building the libraries statically into the binary when
testing. I will send a Makefile change introducing a static = true/false
variable to do that easily.

> You can do that.

Thanks for sending the revert, it's the right thing to do.

     Thomas
--
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/