linux-kernel - Re: Userspace regression in LTS and stable kernels

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: <CAN1fySW2mTaHmj7_uon_xZBVgPeEuYCD8e+JGOSKNwokmgZ7yg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:27:43 -0500
From:   Samuel Dionne-Riel <samuel@...nne-riel.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Graham Christensen <graham@...hamc.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Userspace regression in LTS and stable kernels

On 13/02/2019, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:41 PM Samuel Dionne-Riel
> <samuel@...nne-riel.com> wrote:
>> Before, the interpreter was still used (assuming it wasn't cut by the
>> length), and the interpreter was free to re-read the shebang if
>> desired.
>
> So, to address the "wrong binary" problem, how about we ENOEXEC only
> if no newline or spaces are found in the string?
>

If I understand right, you're asking whether it should return NOEXEC
if, of the first 128 bytes of the shebang, there are no spaces, but a
too long shebang? I wouldn't know for sure. The behaviour would
change. Instead failing due to trying to execute a shortened path, it
would fall back to the shell interpreter interpreting the file, which,
due to the inclusion of a specific shebang, might be a wrong
assumption still. Here I believe it's still in the "undefined
behaviour" territory, but one where it fails early for the userspace.

I don't have a strong opinion, but having a special case depending on
whitespace or not (well, possibility of the interpreter being
truncated or not) feels off. As an end-user, I would rather it
truncates, and show the truncated interpreter it tried to use
(behaviour before regression), rather than fail in a way where the
libc will continue executing using another unexpected interpreter.

Thinking in the principle of least astonishment, I would be less
surprised to see a truncated path on exec() than seeing exec() use an
unexpected interpreter.

-- 
— Samuel Dionne-Riel