From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56E7714C599; Mon, 5 Aug 2024 20:21:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722889297; cv=none; b=CV5Z0UOZs84hK2+Kl/oQV8deN3iDqw+jJwxWpMZpPDDc9qdYX0hwgwVYPQexOnYZDVOpDGcQlt7LpXnxMK9fN9qzLxzgzxfdI+NO/s5OKyD0HPHQ5GyJCBjfLcMtLEanE6udQ/XtvVpHSz636KjYqV928UCVNNWmEVjEJeHl2Rw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722889297; c=relaxed/simple; bh=doePkK3W3rLwILpFW/eujrZrIn3uHHpRkC4DiWYh/mM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=RnfbBqqMND8QXPjn2UFDq9P0X/3Uh9KJ/qVbX+pbXQ+jGaNYnIFyKuIFa17ojlLldO5hrI/7+Aru19YvjIIYrzAPh3UuM5A61KxK9P6cx2NozlTqXrCIVlANBxmDHgae6qeMuZf0BKoRGHU5sEanM41ULucsPZdLehWBaM+fbyA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=N8LO++w9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="N8LO++w9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBAFDC32782; Mon, 5 Aug 2024 20:21:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1722889296; bh=doePkK3W3rLwILpFW/eujrZrIn3uHHpRkC4DiWYh/mM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=N8LO++w9rRwOTrK4vLzeFY2Fb+lpuYIW/Pmm2iLhyrBEKAWK14PMp9gmu2REMsfHn RPF3R+ZKNCuC7aryhLYSQeEI2e7t+7tyCXWgbRU0QLeT/6U5KEISX6W75KzRUnC7Rs uDKXdH8iw82itjYR8Zq/czLiWHwV8e0hRkdTpAaxEw7EZmvQ+MJfn6aknwjmtdIZeK dqAcECA9OzzaInq7gL7Ooet8RDKmPi6J36kpyBbnbngqfOsjXQa88Zjuaxfdk7AWBu 7we6iXQsYtis/9i5jEjNh1tyqE3DuSHaOrxZxRk+2esnfMhFhsuZawqeBFCt5kp7tt CQ1sRC3iF1JtA== Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 13:21:36 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Christian Brauner Cc: Mateusz Guzik , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, wojciech.gladysz@infogain.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: drop a racy path_noexec check Message-ID: <202408051320.A5A8674C@keescook> References: <20240805-fehlbesetzung-nilpferd-1ed58783ad4d@brauner> <20240805131721.765484-1-mjguzik@gmail.com> <20240805-denkspiel-unruhen-c0ec00f5d370@brauner> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240805-denkspiel-unruhen-c0ec00f5d370@brauner> On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 05:35:35PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > But having it in there isn't wrong. In procfs permission/eligibility > checks often are checked as close to the open as possible. Worst case > it's something similar here. But it's certainly wrong to splat about it. Right, please keep the redundant check, but we can downgrade it from a WARN. It's caught stuff in the past, so I'd like to retain it until we really do feel safe enough to let it go. -- Kees Cook