Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs

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

To: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:34:00 +0900
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kevin Locke <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, apparmor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <202401241348.1A2860EB58@keescook>
References: <20240124192228.work.788-kees@kernel.org> <CAG48ez017tTwxXbxdZ4joVDv5i8FLWEjk=K_z1Vf=pf0v1=cTg@mail.gmail.com> <202401241206.031E2C75B@keescook> <CAHk-=wiUwRG7LuR=z5sbkFVGQh+7qVB6_1NM0Ny9SVNL1Un4Sw@mail.gmail.com> <202401241310.0A158998@keescook> <CAG48ez1tcxtEwWgxSUqLDcYbrkY=UM3hz22A0BTvTYq4BGpM8A@mail.gmail.com> <202401241348.1A2860EB58@keescook>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 2024/01/25 6:50, Kees Cook wrote:
> Yeah, I was just noticing this. I was over thinking. :) It does look
> like all that is needed is to remove __FMODE_EXEC.

I worry that some out-of-tree kernel code continues using __FMODE_EXEC for
opening for non-execve() purpose. If that happened, TOMOYO will be fooled...
Can't we remove __FMODE_EXEC and FMODE_EXEC flag from f_flags instead of
replacing current->in_execve with file->f_flags & __FMODE_EXEC ?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
  - From: Jann Horn

References:
- [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
  - From: Kees Cook
- Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
  - From: Jann Horn
- Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
  - From: Kees Cook
- Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
  - From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
  - From: Kees Cook
- Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
  - From: Jann Horn
- Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
  - From: Kees Cook

Prev by Date: [RFC PATCH v1 27/28] riscv: Documentation for shadow stack on riscv
Next by Date: [RFC PATCH v1 23/28] riscv signal: Save and restore of shadow stack for signal
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux ARM Kernel] [Linux ARM] [Linux Omap] [Fedora ARM] [IETF Annouce] [Bugtraq] [Linux OMAP] [Linux MIPS] [eCos] [Asterisk Internet PBX] [Linux API]