linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] exec: add a flag for "reasonable" execveat() comm

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <878qvf17zl.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 21:09:18 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,  Alexander Viro
 <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,  Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,  Jan
 Kara <jack@...e.cz>,  Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,  Jeff Layton
 <jlayton@...nel.org>,  Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,  Alexander
 Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,  linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
  linux-mm@...ck.org,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  Tycho Andersen
 <tandersen@...flix.com>,  Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
 <zbyszek@...waw.pl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] exec: add a flag for "reasonable" execveat() comm

Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza> writes:

> Yep, I did this for the test above, and it worked fine:
>
>         if (bprm->fdpath) {
>                 /*
>                  * If fdpath was set, execveat() made up a path that will
>                  * probably not be useful to admins running ps or similar.
>                  * Let's fix it up to be something reasonable.
>                  */
>                 struct path root;
>                 char *path, buf[1024];
>
>                 get_fs_root(current->fs, &root);
>                 path = __d_path(&bprm->file->f_path, &root, buf, sizeof(buf));
>
>                 __set_task_comm(me, kbasename(path), true);
>         } else {
>                 __set_task_comm(me, kbasename(bprm->filename), true);
>         }
>
> obviously we don't want a stack allocated buffer, but triggering on
> ->fdpath != NULL seems like the right thing, so we won't need a flag
> either.
>
> The question is: argv[0] or __d_path()?

You know.  I think we can just do:

	BUILD_BUG_ON(DNAME_INLINE_LEN >= TASK_COMM_LEN);
	__set_task_comm(me, bprm->file->f_path.dentry->d_name.name, true);

Barring cache misses that should be faster and more reliable than what
we currently have and produce the same output in all of the cases we
like, and produce better output in all of the cases that are a problem
today.

Does anyone see any problem with that?

Eric