linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/exec: require argv[0] presence in do_execveat

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:54:08 -0800
From:   hypervis0r <hypervis0r@...setw0.com>
To:     dalias@...c.org
Cc:     ariadne@...eferenced.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/exec: require argv[0] presence in do_execveat_common()

> I'm not really opposed  to attempting to change this with consensus
> (like, actually  proposing it on the Austin Group tracker), but a less
> invasive change would be  just enforcing it for the case where exec is
> a privilege boundary  (suid/sgid/caps). There's really no motivation
> for changing  longstanding standard behavior in a
> non-privilege-boundary  case.

I don't really see it as a matter of "maintaining standard behavior".

there are very little uses for this ABI feature to be present and only 
serves to make applications harder to port between Linux and other *nix 
systems. The pros (major vulnerabilities like CVE-2021-4034) outweigh 
the cons (minor userland ABI change that only affects shellcode on 
shell-storm.org) in this particular scenario, and I am all for this patch.