[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKPOu+-S5C59X8zW=6keYAsHecketOBzMbb3XXDnLTc0X1nBhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:23:56 +0200
From: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, jmorris@...ei.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, morgan@...nel.org,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exec: Correct the permission check for unsafe exec
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 2:19 AM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> Aside from a tested-by verification from Max, it looks like everyone
> is satisfied with the v2 patch, yes?
Sorry for the delay. I tested Eric's v2 patch and it solves my
problem. His patch is nearly identical to mine, it's only a bit more
intrusive by removing the weird __is_setXid functions that never made
sense. I welcome that; I wasn't confident enough to do that and tried
to make the least intrusive patch.
Eric, I'm glad you changed your mind and no longer consider my work
"pure nonsense" and "pointless".
But one problem remains: in the same email, you demanded evidence that
userspace doesn't depend on the current behavior. However, in your
patch description, you hand-waved that away by "I don't expect anyone
to care". What happened to that?
Max
Powered by blists - more mailing lists