[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202401241151.25D468FE@keescook>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 11:51:49 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Kevin Locke <kevin@...inlocke.name>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@...data.co.jp>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
apparmor@...ts.ubuntu.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:39:38PM -0700, Kevin Locke wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 11:22 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > After commit 978ffcbf00d8 ("execve: open the executable file before
> > doing anything else"), current->in_execve was no longer in sync with the
> > open(). This broke AppArmor and TOMOYO which depend on this flag to
> > distinguish "open" operations from being "exec" operations.
> >
> > Instead of moving around in_execve, switch to using __FMODE_EXEC, which
> > is where the "is this an exec?" intent is stored. Note that TOMOYO still
> > uses in_execve around cred handling.
>
> It solves the AppArmor issue I was experiencing and I don't notice any
> other issues.
>
> Tested-by: Kevin Locke <kevin@...inlocke.name>
Thanks!
Sounds like Linus has taken the patch directly, and I'll send a follow-up
PR with other clean-ups.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists