On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 11:57:27AM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:18 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 10:52:36AM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 10:33 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > * Jeff Xu: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 9:26 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> * Jeff Xu: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Will dynamic linkers use the execveat(AT_CHECK) to check shared > > > > >> > libraries too ? or just the main executable itself. > > > > >> > > > > >> I expect that dynamic linkers will have to do this for everything they > > > > >> map. > > > > > Then all the objects (.so, .sh, etc.) will go through the check from > > > > > execveat's main to security_bprm_creds_for_exec(), some of them might > > > > > be specific for the main executable ? > > > > Yes, we should check every executable code (including seccomp filters) > > to get a consistent policy. > > > > What do you mean by "specific for the main executable"? > > > I meant: > > The check is for the exe itself, not .so, etc. > > For example: /usr/bin/touch is checked. > not the shared objects: > ldd /usr/bin/touch > linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffdc988f000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007f59b6757000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f59b6986000) ld.so should be patched to check shared-objects. > > Basically, I asked if the check can be extended to shared-objects, > seccomp filters, etc, without modifying existing LSMs. Yes, the check should be used against any piece of code such as shared-objects, seccomp filters... > you pointed out "LSM should not need to be updated with this patch > series.", which already answered my question. > > Thanks. > -Jeff > > -Jeff
