Add some comments about what the fs counting is doing in check_unsafe_exec() and how it relates to the call graph. Specifically, we can't force an unshare of the fs because of at least Chrome: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/86CE201B-5632-4BB7-BCF6-7CB2C2895409@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ Cc: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/exec.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c index 902bce45b116..01659c2ac7d8 100644 --- a/fs/exec.c +++ b/fs/exec.c @@ -1571,6 +1571,12 @@ static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm) if (task_no_new_privs(current)) bprm->unsafe |= LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS; + /* + * If another task is sharing our fs, we cannot safely + * suid exec because the differently privileged task + * will be able to manipulate the current directory, etc. + * It would be nice to force an unshare instead... + */ t = p; n_fs = 1; spin_lock(&p->fs->lock); @@ -1752,6 +1758,7 @@ static int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm) return retval; } +/* binfmt handlers will call back into begin_new_exec() on success. */ static int exec_binprm(struct linux_binprm *bprm) { pid_t old_pid, old_vpid; @@ -1810,6 +1817,11 @@ static int bprm_execve(struct linux_binprm *bprm, if (retval) return retval; + /* + * Check for unsafe execution states before exec_binprm(), which + * will call back into begin_new_exec(), into bprm_creds_from_file(), + * where setuid-ness is evaluated. + */ check_unsafe_exec(bprm); current->in_execve = 1; -- 2.34.1
