The patch titled
Subject: mm/mprotect.c: don't imply PROT_EXEC on non-exec fs
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
mm-mprotectc-dont-imply-prot_exec-on-non-exec-fs.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/mm-mprotectc-dont-imply-prot_exec-on-non-exec-fs.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/mm-mprotectc-dont-imply-prot_exec-on-non-exec-fs.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm/mprotect.c: don't imply PROT_EXEC on non-exec fs
The mprotect(PROT_READ) fails when called by the READ_IMPLIES_EXEC binary
on a memory mapped file located on non-exec fs. The mprotect does not
check whether fs is _executable_ or not. The PROT_EXEC flag is set
automatically even if a memory mapped file is located on non-exec fs. Fix
it by checking whether a memory mapped file is located on a non-exec fs.
If so the PROT_EXEC is not implied by the PROT_READ. The implementation
uses the VM_MAYEXEC flag set properly in mmap. Now it is consistent with
mmap.
I did the isolated tests (PT_GNU_STACK X/NX, multiple VMAs, X/NX fs). I
also patched the official 3.19.0-47-generic Ubuntu 14.04 kernel and it
seems to work.
Signed-off-by: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/mprotect.c | 13 ++++++++-----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff -puN mm/mprotect.c~mm-mprotectc-dont-imply-prot_exec-on-non-exec-fs mm/mprotect.c
--- a/mm/mprotect.c~mm-mprotectc-dont-imply-prot_exec-on-non-exec-fs
+++ a/mm/mprotect.c
@@ -359,6 +359,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long,
struct vm_area_struct *vma, *prev;
int error = -EINVAL;
const int grows = prot & (PROT_GROWSDOWN|PROT_GROWSUP);
+ const bool rier = (current->personality & READ_IMPLIES_EXEC) &&
+ (prot & PROT_READ);
+
prot &= ~(PROT_GROWSDOWN|PROT_GROWSUP);
if (grows == (PROT_GROWSDOWN|PROT_GROWSUP)) /* can't be both */
return -EINVAL;
@@ -375,11 +378,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long,
return -EINVAL;
reqprot = prot;
- /*
- * Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC:
- */
- if ((prot & PROT_READ) && (current->personality & READ_IMPLIES_EXEC))
- prot |= PROT_EXEC;
down_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
@@ -414,6 +412,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long,
/* Here we know that vma->vm_start <= nstart < vma->vm_end. */
+ /* Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC */
+ if (rier && (vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYEXEC))
+ prot |= PROT_EXEC;
+
newflags = calc_vm_prot_bits(prot, pkey);
newflags |= (vma->vm_flags & ~(VM_READ | VM_WRITE | VM_EXEC));
@@ -445,6 +447,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long,
error = -ENOMEM;
goto out;
}
+ prot = reqprot;
}
out:
up_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from kwapulinski.piotr@xxxxxxxxx are
mm-mprotectc-dont-imply-prot_exec-on-non-exec-fs.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
