[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220518104601.fc21907008231b60a0e54a8e@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:46:01 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
Cc: <keescook@...omium.org>, <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] exec: Remove redundant check in
do_open_execat/uselib
On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:12:27 +0800 Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com> wrote:
> There is a false positive WARNON happening in execve(2)/uselib(2)
> syscalls with concurrent noexec-remount.
>
> execveat remount
> do_open_execat(path/bin)
> do_filp_open
> path_openat
> do_open
> may_open
> path_noexec() // PASS
> remount(path->mnt, MS_NOEXEC)
> WARNON(path_noexec(&file->f_path)) // path_noexec() checks fail
You're saying this is a race condition? A concurrent remount causes
this warning?
> Since may_open() has already checked the same conditions, fix it by
> removing 'S_ISREG' and 'path_noexec' check in do_open_execat()/uselib(2).
>
> ...
>
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -141,16 +141,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(uselib, const char __user *, library)
> if (IS_ERR(file))
> goto out;
>
> - /*
> - * may_open() has already checked for this, so it should be
> - * impossible to trip now. But we need to be extra cautious
> - * and check again at the very end too.
> - */
> - error = -EACCES;
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!S_ISREG(file_inode(file)->i_mode) ||
> - path_noexec(&file->f_path)))
> - goto exit;
> -
Maybe we should retain the `goto exit'. The remount has now occurred,
so the execution attempt should be denied. If so, the comment should
be updated to better explain what's happening.
I guess we'd still be racy against `mount -o exec', but accidentally
denying something seems less serious than accidentally permitting it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists