[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sgg6v8we.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 09:33:21 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] exec: Remove recursion from search_binary_handler
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 9:30 PM Tetsuo Handa
> <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't this change cause
>>
>> if (fd_binary > 0)
>> ksys_close(fd_binary);
>> bprm->interp_flags = 0;
>> bprm->interp_data = 0;
>>
>> not to be called when "Search for the interpreter" failed?
>
> Good catch. We seem to have some subtle magic wrt the fd_binary file
> descriptor, which depends on the recursive behavior.
Yes. I Tetsuo I really appreciate you noticing this. This is exactly
the kind of behavior I am trying to flush out and keep from being
hidden.
> I'm not seeing how to fix it cleanly with the "turn it into a loop".
> Basically, that binfmt_misc use-case isn't really a tail-call.
I have reservations about installing a new file descriptor before
we process the close on exec logic and the related security modules
closing file descriptors that your new credentials no longer give
you access to logic.
I haven't yet figured out how opening a file descriptor during exec
should fit into all of that.
What I do see is that interp_data is just a parameter that is smuggled
into the call of search binary handler. And the next binary handler
needs to be binfmt_elf for it to make much sense, as only binfmt_elf
(and binfmt_elf_fdpic) deals with BINPRM_FLAGS_EXECFD.
So I think what needs to happen is to rename bprm->interp_data to
bprm->execfd, remove BINPRM_FLAGS_EXECFD and make closing that file
descriptor free_bprm's responsiblity.
I hope such a change will make it easier to see all of the pieces that
are intereacting during exec.
I am still asking: is the installation of that file descriptor useful if
it is not exported passed to userspace as an AT_EXECFD note?
I will dig in and see what I can come up with.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists