[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202201261210.E0E7EB83@keescook>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:13:16 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Ariadne Conill <ariadne@...eferenced.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/binfmt_elf: Add padding NULL when argc == 0
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 08:08:14PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:58:39AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > We can't mutate argc; it'll turn at least some userspace into an
> > infinite loop:
> > https://sources.debian.org/src/valgrind/1:3.18.1-1/none/tests/execve.c/?hl=22#L22
>
> How does that become an infinite loop? We obviously wouldn't mutate
> argc in the caller, just the callee.
Oh, sorry, I misread. It's using /bin/true, not argv[0] (another bit of
code I found was using argv[0]). Yeah, {"", NULL} could work.
> Also, there's a version of this where we only mutate argc if we're
> executing a setuid program, which would remove the privilege
> escalation part of things.
True; though I'd like to keep the logic as non-specialized as possible.
I don't like making stuff conditional on privilege boundaries if we can
make it always happen.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists