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  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:   Tue, 19 May 2020 10:11:34 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <>
Cc:     Jann Horn <>, Kees Cook <>,
        Al Viro <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,
        Eric Biggers <>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <>,
        linux-fsdevel <>,
        linux-security-module <>,
        Linux API <>,
        kernel list <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] exec: Change uselib(2) IS_SREG() failure to EACCES

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 06:57:15PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Christian Brauner <> writes:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 04:43:20PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:03 PM Christian Brauner
> >> <> wrote:
> >> > Also - gulp (puts on flame proof suit) - may I suggest we check if there
> >> > are any distros out there that still set CONFIG_USELIB=y
> >> 
> >> Debian seems to have it enabled on x86...
> >> 
> >>
> >> 
> >> A random Ubuntu 19.10 VM I have here has it enabled, too.
> >
> > I wonder if there's any program - apart from _ancient_ glibc out there
> > that actually use it...
> > I looked at uselib in codsearch but the results were quite unspecific
> > but I didn't look too close.
> So the thing to do is to have a polite word with people who build Ubuntu
> and Debian kernels and get them to disable the kernel .config.

Yeah, I think that's a sane thing to do.
I filed a bug for Ubuntu to start a discussion. I can't see an obvious
reason why not.

> A quick look suggets it is already disabled in RHEL8.  It cannot be
> disabled in RHEL7.
> Then in a few years we can come back and discuss removing the uselib
> system call, base on no distributions having it enabled.
> If it was only libc4 and libc5 that used the uselib system call then it
> can probably be removed after enough time.
> We can probably reorganize the code before the point it is clearly safe
> to drop support for USELIB to keep it off to the side so USELIB does not
> have any ongoing mainteance costs.
> For this patchset I think we need to assume uselib will need to be
> maintained for a bit longer.

Yeah, agreed. It doesn't matter as long as we have a plan for the future
to remove it. I don't think keeping this cruft around forever should be
the only outlook.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists