Re: [RFC PATCH v19 1/5] exec: Add a new AT_CHECK flag to execveat(2)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Mickaël Salaün:

> On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Mickaël Salaün:
>> 
>> > Add a new AT_CHECK flag to execveat(2) to check if a file would be
>> > allowed for execution.  The main use case is for script interpreters and
>> > dynamic linkers to check execution permission according to the kernel's
>> > security policy. Another use case is to add context to access logs e.g.,
>> > which script (instead of interpreter) accessed a file.  As any
>> > executable code, scripts could also use this check [1].
>> 
>> Some distributions no longer set executable bits on most shared objects,
>> which I assume would interfere with AT_CHECK probing for shared objects.
>
> A file without the execute permission is not considered as executable by
> the kernel.  The AT_CHECK flag doesn't change this semantic.  Please
> note that this is just a check, not a restriction.  See the next patch
> for the optional policy enforcement.
>
> Anyway, we need to define the policy, and for Linux this is done with
> the file permission bits.  So for systems willing to have a consistent
> execution policy, we need to rely on the same bits.

Yes, that makes complete sense.  I just wanted to point out the odd
interaction with the old binutils bug and the (sadly still current)
kernel bug.

>> Removing the executable bit is attractive because of a combination of
>> two bugs: a binutils wart which until recently always set the entry
>> point address in the ELF header to zero, and the kernel not checking for
>> a zero entry point (maybe in combination with an absent program
>> interpreter) and failing the execve with ELIBEXEC, instead of doing the
>> execve and then faulting at virtual address zero.  Removing the
>> executable bit is currently the only way to avoid these confusing
>> crashes, so I understand the temptation.
>
> Interesting.  Can you please point to the bug report and the fix?  I
> don't see any ELIBEXEC in the kernel.

The kernel hasn't been fixed yet.  I do think this should be fixed, so
that distributions can bring back the executable bit.

Thanks,
Florian





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux