linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] exec: Use sane stack rlimit for setuid exec

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:   Fri, 7 Jul 2017 13:09:49 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] exec: Use sane stack rlimit for setuid exec

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> It looks like Kees went through the security modules [..]

i take that back. It looks like Kees looked at smack, but not at
SElinux, for example.

selinux_bprm_secureexec() seems to just look at current_security(),
not at the new stuff in bprm at all.

Which would seem to be exactly the wrong thing to do, and is insane
(why pass in bprm at all?) but comes from the fact that we used to
call bprm_secureexec() in an insane place.

So I think this patch series is sadly broken - I think it does the
right thing, but the security modules definitely look like they need
to be updated for that right thing.

                    Linus