linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/11] exec: In bprm_fill_uid only set per

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]

Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 14:21:57 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     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 09/11] exec: In bprm_fill_uid only set per_clear when honoring suid or sgid

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:53 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>>
>> It makes no sense to set active_per_clear when the kernel decides not
>> to honor the executables setuid or or setgid bits.  Instead set
>> active_per_clear when the kernel actually decides to honor the suid or
>> sgid permission bits of an executable.
>
> You seem to be confused about the naming yourself.
>
> You talk about "active_per_clear", but the code is about "per_clear". WTF?

I figured out how to kill active_per_clear see (3/11) and I failed to
update the patch description here.

I think active_ is a louzy suffix but since it all goes away in patch 3
when I remove the recomputation and the need to have two versions of the
setting I think it is probably good enough.

Eric