linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull exec fix for v5.7

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: <CAHk-=whTcs=GjYGs+KHSAL16vkrK1KRuxuWf8WdrR-W2k9wXaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 14:32:10 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull exec fix for v5.7

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:36 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see us touching cap_ambient anywhere except the line that does:
>
>         /* File caps or setid cancels ambient. */
>         if (has_fcap || is_setid)
>                 cap_clear(new->cap_ambient);

That's the one I was thinking of.

I think it would have made more sense to simply initialize it there
and have all accesses to cap_ambient in one place.

The (even better?) alternative would have been to simply just always
re-initialize it in the caller.

If this is about interpreter vs scripts, I really find it confusing
how we make these kinds of re-initializations at the security layer
that doesn't know about one vs the other.. Yes, in your cleanup
branch, the "primary" thing becomes more clear, but it very much is
_not_ clear within the context of this patch.

Hmm?

              Linus