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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
 <GV2PPF74270EBEEAD4CACA124C05BE1CE45E4D5A@GV2PPF74270EBEE.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 03:59:56 +0100
From: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
 Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
 Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>, James Morris
 <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
 Helge Deller <deller@....de>, Adrian Reber <areber@...hat.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
 "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, tiozhang <tiozhang@...iglobal.com>,
 Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
 "Paulo Alcantara (SUSE)" <pc@...guebit.com>,
 Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, YueHaibing
 <yuehaibing@...wei.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
 Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, Stefan Roesch <shr@...kernel.io>,
 Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, xu xin <xu.xin16@....com.cn>,
 Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
 David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
 Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
 "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
 "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
 Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
 Penglei Jiang <superman.xpt@...il.com>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@...labora.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
 "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] exec: Move cred computation under exec_update_lock

Hi Eric,

thanks for you valuable input on the topic.

On 11/21/25 00:50, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> writes:
> 
>> Instead of computing the new cred before we pass the point of no
>> return compute the new cred just before we use it.
>>
>> This allows the removal of fs_struct->in_exec and cred_guard_mutex.
>>
>> I am not certain why we wanted to compute the cred for the new
>> executable so early.  Perhaps I missed something but I did not see any
>> common errors being signaled.   So I don't think we loose anything by
>> computing the new cred later.
> 
> I should add that the permission checks happen in open_exec,
> everything that follows credential wise is just about representing in
> struct cred the credentials the new executable will have.
> 
> So I am really at a loss why we have had this complicated way of
> computing of computed the credentials all of these years full of
> time of check to time of use problems.
> 

Well, I think I see a problem with your patch:

When the security engine gets the LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE flag, it might
e.g. return -EPERM in bprm_creds_for_exec in the apparmor, selinux
or the smack security engines at least.  Previously that callback
was called before the point of no return, and the return code should
be returned as a return code the the caller of execve.  But if we move
that check after the point of no return, the caller will get killed
due to the failed security check.

Or did I miss something?


Thanks
Bernd.

> Eric


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ