On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:10:58AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 08:54, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. That whole thing is disgusting. I think it should have checked
> > FMODE_EXEC, and I have no idea why it doesn't.
>
> Maybe because FMODE_EXEC gets set for uselib() calls too? I dunno. I
> think it would be even better if we had the 'intent' flags from
> 'struct open_flags' available, but they aren't there in the
> file_open() security chain.
I think there were other problems that I might have already fixed when I
reorganized things in commit 0fd338b2d2cd ("exec: move path_noexec() check
earlier") to more correctly map to LSM checks.
> Anyway, moving current->in_execve earlier looks fairly trivial, but I
> worry about the randomness. I'd be *so*( much happier if this crazy
> flag went away, and it got changed to look at the open intent instead.
>
> Attached patch is ENTIRELY UNTESTED. And disgusting.
I opted to tie "current->in_execve" lifetime to bprm lifetime just to
have a clean boundary (i.e. strictly in alloc/free_bprm()).
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
