On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:05 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 01:27:34AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > The check_unsafe_exec() counting of n_fs would not add up under a heavily
> > threaded process trying to perform a suid exec, causing the suid portion
> > to fail. This counting error appears to be unneeded, but to catch any
> > possible conditions, explicitly unshare fs_struct on exec, if it ends up
>
> Isn't this a potential uapi break? Afaict, before this change a call to
> clone{3}(CLONE_FS) followed by an exec in the child would have the
> parent and child share fs information. So if the child e.g., changes the
> working directory post exec it would also affect the parent. But after
> this change here this would no longer be true. So a child changing a
> workding directoro would not affect the parent anymore. IOW, an exec is
> accompanied by an unshare(CLONE_FS). Might still be worth trying ofc but
> it seems like a non-trivial uapi change but there might be few users
> that do clone{3}(CLONE_FS) followed by an exec.
I believe the following code in Chromium explicitly relies on this
behavior, but I'm not sure whether this code is in active use anymore:
https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:sandbox/linux/suid/sandbox.c;l=101?q=CLONE_FS&sq=&ss=chromium
