From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: P J P <ppandit@redhat.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, halfdog <me@halfdog.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: do not leave bprm->interp on stack
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:38:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121025123843.GJ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121025120952.GI2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:09:53PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:16:22PM +0530, P J P wrote:
> >
> > Hello Kees,
> >
> > +-- On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Kees Cook wrote --+
> > | What should the code here _actually_ be doing? The _script and _misc
> > | handlers expect to rewrite the bprm contents and recurse, but the module
> > | loader want to try again. It's not clear to me what the binfmt module
> > | handler is even there for; I don't see any binfmt-XXXX aliases in the tree.
> > | If nothing uses it, should we just rip it out? That would solve it too.
>
> ; grep binfmt- /etc/*/* 2>/dev/null
> /etc/modprobe.d/aliases.conf:install binfmt-0000 /bin/true
> /etc/modprobe.d/aliases.conf:alias binfmt-204 binfmt_aout
> /etc/modprobe.d/aliases.conf:alias binfmt-263 binfmt_aout
> /etc/modprobe.d/aliases.conf:alias binfmt-264 binfmt_aout
> /etc/modprobe.d/aliases.conf:alias binfmt-267 binfmt_aout
> /etc/modprobe.d/aliases.conf:alias binfmt-387 binfmt_aout
> ; dpkg -S /etc/modprobe.d/aliases.conf
> module-init-tools: /etc/modprobe.d/aliases.conf
>
> > I've been following this issue and updated versions of HDs patch. Below is a
> > small patch to search_binary_handler() routine, which attempts to make the
> > request_module call before calling load_script routine.
> >
> > Besides fixing the stack disclosure issue it also helps to *simplify* the
> > search_binary_handler routine by removing the -for (try=0;try<2;try++)- loop.
> >
> > I'd really appreciate any comments/suggestions you may have.
>
> Suggestion: try testing your patches once in a while. Stopping to think
> for a minute would also help - you've turned every execve() into "do
> request_module() first". How do you suppose request_module() works? And
> how would modprobe be able to run? IOW, this request_module() will be
> stopped by protection against infinite loops, at which point execve will
> proceed with already present binfmt, without having loaded anything.
> But that's even worse than slowdown on each execve (with a lot of whining
> in process), because *every* request_module() will fail now due to the same
> loop prevention.
... and after the second look at your patch, looks like another breakage
in there will have a different effect - it doesn't just eliminate the
first pass through the loop, it inverts the test for "should I try
request_module()". Overall result is a bit less painful - request_module()
isn't broken on loop prevention, but
* every bleeding script will have bogus execution of modprobe done
at execve time (and you'd better pray that /sbin/modprobe isn't a shell
script wrapper around the actual binary, or you *will* get loop prevention
kick in)
* none of the existing binfmt-<...> aliases is going to be hit
now; IOW, all usecases got broken. Granted, realistically it just means
broken modular aout support, but then it's the only reason to have that
request_module() there in the first place.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-25 12:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-24 23:20 [PATCH] exec: do not leave bprm->interp on stack Kees Cook
2012-10-25 4:16 ` Al Viro
2012-10-25 6:21 ` Kees Cook
2012-10-25 11:46 ` P J P
2012-10-25 12:03 ` Tetsuo Handa
2012-10-25 12:57 ` P J P
2012-10-25 12:09 ` Al Viro
2012-10-25 12:38 ` Al Viro [this message]
2012-10-26 17:38 ` P J P
2012-10-26 18:36 ` Al Viro
2012-10-27 10:47 ` P J P
2012-10-27 17:05 ` Kees Cook
2012-10-27 20:16 ` P J P
2012-10-28 3:32 ` Kees Cook
2012-11-06 8:10 ` P J P
2012-11-12 22:10 ` Kees Cook
2012-11-13 6:50 ` halfdog
2012-11-16 12:50 ` P J P
2012-11-16 18:00 ` Kees Cook
2012-11-18 19:04 ` P J P
2012-11-18 19:34 ` Kees Cook
2012-11-19 6:57 ` P J P
2012-11-19 20:41 ` Kees Cook
2012-11-20 7:04 ` P J P
2012-11-22 14:17 ` P J P
2012-11-25 1:30 ` Kees Cook
2012-11-26 6:23 ` P J P
2012-11-23 18:43 ` P J P
2012-11-23 23:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
[not found] ` <CA+55aFx3LFH5Xj1OkNoy7vN5w8y5tH39MUDujKqF3BdnmYibLQ@mail.gmail.com>
2012-11-20 7:08 ` P J P
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121025123843.GJ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=me@halfdog.net \
--cc=ppandit@redhat.com \
--cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).