[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <376258a7-b7fa-51f9-2137-c123b8ff304e@digikod.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 16:43:21 +0100
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: concord@...too.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Philippe Trébuchet
<philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>,
Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>,
Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC)
On 08/02/2023 20:32, Kees Cook wrote:
> *thread necromancy*
>
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 06:09:03PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>
>> On 05/04/2022 01:26, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 3:25 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>
>>>> I think this already exists as AT_EACCESS? It was added with
>>>> faccessat2() itself, if I'm reading the history correctly.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I noticed myself, I just hadn't looked (and I don't do enough
>>> user-space programming to be aware of if that way).
>>
>> I think AT_EACCESS should be usable with the new EXECVE_OK too.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> (a) "what about suid bits that user space cannot react to"
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean here? Do you mean setid bits on the file itself?
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> Maybe we don't care.
>>
>> I think we don't. I think the only corner case that could be different is
>> for files that are executable, SUID and non-readable. In this case it
>> wouldn't matter because userspace could not read the file, which is required
>> for interpretation/execution. Anyway, S[GU]ID bits in scripts are just
>> ignored by execve and we want to follow the same semantic.
>
> Hi Mickaël,
>
> Is there a new version of this being worked on? It would be really nice
> to have the O_MAYEXEC/faccessat2() visibility for script execution control
> in userspace. It seems like it would be mainly a respin of an earlier
> version of this series before trusted_for() was proposed.
Yes, I plan to send a new version in a few weeks.
>
> -Kees
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists