[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202201311447.4A1CCAF@keescook>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 14:49:36 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
Ariadne Conill <ariadne@...eferenced.org>,
0day robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [fs/exec] 80bd5afdd8: xfstests.generic.633.fail
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 01:59:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 18:13:44 +0100 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > in other words, the changes that you see CMD_ARGS[0] == NULL for
> > > execveat() seem higher than for path-based exec.
> > >
> > > To counter that we should probably at least update the execveat()
> > > manpage with a recommendation what CMD_ARGS[0] should be set to if it
> > > isn't allowed to be set to NULL anymore. This is why was asking what
> > > argv[0] is supposed to be if the binary doesn't take any arguments.
> >
> > Sent a fix to our fstests now replacing the argv[0] as NULL with "".
>
> As we hit this check so quickly, I'm thinking that Ariadne's patch
> "fs/exec: require argv[0] presence in do_execveat_common()" (which
> added the check) isn't something we'll be able to merge into mainline?
I think the next best would be to mutate an NULL argv into { "", NULL }.
However, I still think we should do the pr_warn().
Thoughts?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists