[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250406-angucken-ankommen-6974c000f0fb@brauner>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 21:51:19 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Penglei Jiang <superman.xpt@...il.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+5d8e79d323a13aa0b248@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] anon_inode: use a proper mode internally
> Anyway, I'm finishing the patch and testing tomorrow and will send out
> with all the things I mentioned (unless I find out I'm wrong).
Found my notes about this. I knew I had notes about this somewhere...
It isn't possible to execute anoymous inodes because you cannot open
them. That includes stuff like:
execveat(fd_anon_inode, "", NULL, NULL, AT_EMPTY_PATH)
Look, anonymous inodes have inode->f_op set to no_open_fops which sets
no_open() which returns ENXIO. That means any call to do_dentry_open()
which is the endpoint of the do_open_execat() will fail. There's no
chance to execute an anonymous inode. Unless a given subsystem overrides
it ofc.
I still agree that we need to be more coherent about this and we need to
improve various semantical quirks I pointed out. But the exec problem
isn't really an issue so the patch itself still seems correct to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists