linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] execve updates for v6.13-rc1 (take 2)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg_=arZ+9MPnNu_wbZbp0yfVpbGp6768VHjUrv_--1SZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 20:24:50 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, 
	Nir Lichtman <nir@...htman.org>, Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] execve updates for v6.13-rc1 (take 2)

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 at 13:43, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> Probably a silly question, but why not do the same thing in all cases?

Because it would actually make a difference for the symlink case.

And unlike the open() -> fd -> execveat() case, the symlink is
actually active at the time of the execve(), so at that time it's a
real part of the name.

Now, do I believe it would actually matter? No, I doubt anybody would
really notice. But let's not change user-visible behavior "just
because".

             Linus