Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/2] vfs: Commit to never having exectuables on proc and sysfs.

[Richard Weinberger <richard-/L3Ra7n9ekc@public.gmane.org>]

Am 10.07.2015 um 21:30 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 08:24:41PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 10.07.2015 um 18:17 schrieb Eric W. Biederman:
>>>
>>> Today proc and sysfs do not contain any executable files.  Several
>>> applications today mount proc or sysfs without noexec and nosuid and
>>> then depend on there being no exectuables files on proc or sysfs.
>>> Having any executable files show on proc or sysfs would cause
>>> a user space visible regression, and most likely security problems.
>>>
>>> Therefore commit to never allowing executables on proc and sysfs by
>>> adding a new flag to mark them as filesystems without executables and
>>> enforce that flag.
>>>
>>> Test the flag where MNT_NOEXEC is tested today, so that the only user
>>> visible effect will be that exectuables will be treated as if the
>>> execute bit is cleared.
>>>
>>> The filesystems proc and sysfs do not currently incoporate any
>>> executable files so this does not result in any user visible effects.
>>>
>>> This makes it unnecessary to vet changes to proc and sysfs tightly for
>>> adding exectuable files or changes to chattr that would modify
>>> existing files, as no matter what the individual file say they will
>>> not be treated as exectuable files by the vfs.
>>>
>>> Not having to vet changes to closely is important as without this we
>>> are only one proc_create call (or another goof up in the
>>> implementation of notify_change) from having problematic executables
>>> on proc.  Those mistakes are all too easy to make and would create
>>> a situation where there are security issues or the assumptions of
>>> some program having to be broken (and cause userspace regressions).
>>
>> Would it make sense to add SB_I_NOEXEC to more pseudo filesystems?
>> Say pstore or devpts?
> 
> And configfs and cgroupfs?

Yep. Any filesystem where exectuables do not make sense. :-)

Thanks,
//richard