[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87imhgyeqt.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:07:06 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Aurelien Jacquiot <jacquiot.aurelien@...il.com>,
linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix ELF / FDPIC ELF core dumping, and use mmap_sem properly in there
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:10 AM Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> > Most of that file goes back to pre-git days. And most of the commits
>> > since are not so much about binfmt_flat, as they are about cleanups or
>> > changes elsewhere where binfmt_flat was just a victim.
>>
>> I'll have a look at this.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Quick hack test shows moving setup_new_exec(bprm) to be just before
>> install_exec_creds(bprm) works fine for the static binaries case.
>> Doing the flush_old_exec(bprm) there too crashed out - I'll need to
>> dig into that to see why.
>
> Just moving setup_new_exec() would at least allow us to then join the
> two together, and just say "setup_new_exec() does the credential
> installation too".
But it is only half a help if we allow failure points between
flush_old_exec and install_exec_creds.
Greg do things work acceptably if install_exec_creds is moved to right
after setup_new_exec? (patch below)
Looking at the code in load_flat_file after setup_new_exec it looks like
the kinds of things that in binfmt_elf.c we do after install_exec_creds
(aka vm_map). So I think we want install_exec_creds sooner, instead
of setup_new_exec later.
> But if it's true that nobody really uses the odd flat library support
> any more and there are no testers, maybe we should consider ripping it
> out...
I looked a little deeper and there is another reason to think about
ripping out the flat library loader. The code is recursive, and
supports a maximum of 4 shared libraries in the entire system.
load_flat_binary
load_flat_file
calc_reloc
load_flat_shared_libary
load_flat_file
....
I am mystified with what kind of system can survive with a grand total
of 4 shared libaries. I think my a.out slackware system that I ran on
my i486 had more shared libraries.
Having read just a bit more it is definitely guaranteed (by the code)
that the first time load_flat_file is called id 0 will be used (aka id 0
is guaranteed to be the binary), and the ids 1, 2, 3 and 4 will only be
used if a relocation includes that id to reference an external shared
library. That part of the code is drop dead simple.
---
This is what I was thinking about applying.
diff --git a/fs/binfmt_flat.c b/fs/binfmt_flat.c
index 831a2b25ba79..1a1d1fcb893f 100644
--- a/fs/binfmt_flat.c
+++ b/fs/binfmt_flat.c
@@ -541,6 +541,7 @@ static int load_flat_file(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
/* OK, This is the point of no return */
set_personality(PER_LINUX_32BIT);
setup_new_exec(bprm);
+ install_exec_creds(bprm);
}
/*
@@ -963,8 +964,6 @@ static int load_flat_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
}
}
- install_exec_creds(bprm);
-
set_binfmt(&flat_format);
#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
Powered by blists - more mailing lists