linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] uapi, vfs: Change the mount API UAPI [ver #2]

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: <20190516165021.GD17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 17:50:22 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-abi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] uapi, vfs: Change the mount API UAPI [ver #2]

[linux-abi cc'd]

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 06:31:52PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:52:04PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Linus, Al,
> > > 
> > > Here are some patches that make changes to the mount API UAPI and two of
> > > them really need applying, before -rc1 - if they're going to be applied at
> > > all.
> > 
> > I'm fine with 2--4, but I'm not convinced that cloexec-by-default crusade
> > makes any sense.  Could somebody give coherent arguments in favour of
> > abandoning the existing conventions?
> 
> So as I said in the commit message. From a userspace perspective it's
> more of an issue if one accidently leaks an fd to a task during exec.
> 
> Also, most of the time one does not want to inherit an fd during an
> exec. It is a hazzle to always have to specify an extra flag.
> 
> As Al pointed out to me open() semantics are not going anywhere. Sure,
> no argument there at all.
> But the idea of making fds cloexec by default is only targeted at fds
> that come from separate syscalls. fsopen(), open_tree_clone(), etc. they
> all return fds independent of open() so it's really easy to have them
> cloexec by default without regressing anyone and we also remove the need
> for a bunch of separate flags for each syscall to turn them into
> cloexec-fds. I mean, those for syscalls came with 4 separate flags to be
> able to specify that the returned fd should be made cloexec. The other
> way around, cloexec by default, fcntl() to remove the cloexec bit is way
> saner imho.

Re separate flags - it is, in principle, a valid argument.  OTOH, I'm not
sure if they need to be separate - they all have the same value and
I don't see any reason for that to change...

Only tangentially related, but I wonder if something like close_range(from, to)
would be a more useful approach...  That kind of open-coded loops is not
rare in userland and kernel-side code can do them much cheaper.  Something
like
	/* that exec is sensitive */
	unshare(CLONE_FILES);
	/* we don't want anything past stderr here */
	close_range(3, ~0U);
	execve(....);
on the userland side of thing.  Comments?