[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wojuxj8s.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:49:39 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Mickaël Salaün
<mic@...ikod.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro
<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jonathan
Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Matthew
Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Mickaël Salaün <mickael.salaun@....gouv.fr>, Mimi
Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, Philippe Trébuchet
<philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Thibaut
Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>, Vincent Strubel
<vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>, Yves-Alexis Perez
<yves-alexis.perez@....gouv.fr>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Bobrowski
<mbobrowski@...browski.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/5] fs: Add support for an O_MAYEXEC flag on sys_open()
* Steve Grubb:
> This flag that is being proposed means that you would have to patch all
> interpreters to use it. If you are sure that upstreams will accept that, why
> not just change the policy to interpreters shouldn't execute anything unless
> the execute bit is set? That is simpler and doesn't need a kernel change. And
> setting the execute bit is an auditable event.
I think we need something like O_MAYEXEC so that security policies can
be enforced and noexec mounts can be detected. I don't think it's a
good idea to do this in userspace, especially the latter.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
