Re: Creating executable device nodes in /dev?

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:15:27AM +0200, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> > > > As  a further argument, I just did this on a Fedora system:
> > > > $ find /dev -perm /ugo+x -a \! -type d -a \! -type l
> > > > No results.  So making /dev noexec doesn't seem to have any benefit.
> > > 
> > > It's no surprise that there aren't any executables in /dev since
> > > removing MAKEDEV ages ago. That's not the issue, which is that
> > > /dev is a writable directory (for UID=0 but no capabilities are
> > > needed) and thus a potential location for constructing unapproved
> > > executables if it is also mounted exec (W^X).
> > 
> > UID 0 can just change mount options, though, unless SELinux or similar is used. And SELinux can protect /dev just fine without noexec.
> 
> Well, mounting would need CAP_SYS_ADMIN in addition to UID 0. Also SELinux
> is not universal and the policies might not contain all users or services.
> 
> -Topi

What's the data that supports having noexec /dev anyway? With root
access I can then just use something else like /dev/shm mount.

Has there been out in the wild real world cases that noexec mount
of would have prevented?

For me this sounds a lot just something that "feels more secure"
without any measurable benefit. Can you prove me wrong?

/Jarkko