From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
josef@toxicpanda.com, wojciech.gladysz@infogain.com,
ebiederm@xmission.com, kees@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: drop a racy path_noexec check
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:35:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240805-denkspiel-unruhen-c0ec00f5d370@brauner> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240805131721.765484-1-mjguzik@gmail.com>
> To my reading that path_noexec is still there only for debug, not
> because of any security need.
I don't think it's there for debug. I think that WARN_ON_ONCE() is based
on the assumption that the mount properties can't change. IOW, someone
must've thought that somehow stable mount properties are guaranteed
after may_open() irrespective of how the file was opened. And in that
sense they thought they might actually catch a bug.
But originally it did serve a purpose...
>
> To that end just I propose just whacking it.
... the full history (afaict) is that once upon a time noexec and
whether it was a regular file were checked in (precurors to)
inode_permission().
It then got moved into the callers. The callers also called may_open()
directly afterwards. So the noexec and i_mode check preceeded the call
to may_open() and thus to inode_permission().
Then may_open() got moved into the open helpers but the noexec and
i_mode checks stayed behind. So the order was now reversed. That in turn
meant it was possible to see non-regular file exec requests in
security_inode_permission().
So the order was restored by moving that check into may_open(). At that
time it would've made sense to also wipe the path_noexec() from there.
But having it in there isn't wrong. In procfs permission/eligibility
checks often are checked as close to the open as possible. Worst case
it's something similar here. But it's certainly wrong to splat about it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-05 15:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-01 12:07 [PATCH] kernel/fs: last check for exec credentials on NOEXEC mount Wojciech Gładysz
2024-08-01 14:07 ` Josef Bacik
2024-08-01 15:15 ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-08-02 15:58 ` Josef Bacik
2024-08-03 6:29 ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-08-05 9:26 ` Christian Brauner
2024-08-05 13:17 ` [PATCH] exec: drop a racy path_noexec check Mateusz Guzik
2024-08-05 15:35 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2024-08-05 20:21 ` Kees Cook
2024-08-05 23:38 ` Al Viro
2024-08-05 23:41 ` Al Viro
2024-08-06 7:06 ` Christian Brauner
2024-08-02 3:28 ` [PATCH] kernel/fs: last check for exec credentials on NOEXEC mount Kees Cook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240805-denkspiel-unruhen-c0ec00f5d370@brauner \
--to=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wojciech.gladysz@infogain.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox