From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Subject: Re: [PATCHv10 man-pages 5/5] execveat.2: initial man page for execveat(2)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:20:04 -0600
Message-ID: <877fwvy7ln.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
References: <1416830039-21952-1-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com>
	<1416830039-21952-6-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com>
	<54AFF813.7050604@gmail.com>
	<20150109161302.GQ4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
	<CAHse=S88Jy5ZKM_VY5onfvxX7dTMngnxuHfuLeSuzvKvQNP19A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150109204815.GR4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
	<20150109205626.GK22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	<20150109205926.GT4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <sparclinux-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150109205926.GT4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (Rich Felker's
	message of "Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:59:26 -0500")
Sender: sparclinux-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Meredydd Luff <meredydd@senatehouse.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 08:56:26PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:48:15PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > I think this is a case that needs to be fixed, though it's hard. The
>> > normal correct usage for fexecve is to always pass an O_CLOEXEC file
>> > descriptor, and the caller can't really be expected to know whether
>> > the file is a script or not. We discussed workarounds before and one
>> > idea I proposed was having fexecve provide a "one open only" magic
>> > symlink in /proc/self/ to pass to the interpreter. It would behave
>> > like an O_PATH file descriptor magic symlink in /proc/self/fd, but
>> > would automatically cease to exist on the first open (at which point
>> > the interpreter would have a real O_RDONLY file descriptor for the
>> > underlying file).
>> 
>> For fsck sake, folks, if you have bloody /proc, you don't need that shite
>> at all!  Just do execve on /proc/self/fd/n, and be done with that.
>> 
>> The sole excuse for merging that thing in the first place had been
>> "would anybody think of children^Wsclerotic^Whardened environments
>> where they have no /proc at all".
>
> That doesn't work. With O_CLOEXEC, /proc/self/fd/n is already gone at
> the time the interpreter runs, whether you're using fexecveat or
> execve with "/proc/self/fd/n" to implement POSIX fexecve(). That's the
> problem. This breaks the intended idiom for fexecve.

O_CLOEXEC with a #! intepreter can not work.  If the file descriptor is
closed a #! interpreter can not open it.   So I don't know why or how
you want that to work but it is nonsense.

This certainly does not break the intended usage for execveat.

Eric