|
Message-ID: <202407081237.42C50C2F7@keescook> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:38:19 -0700 From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org> To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, Eric Chiang <ericchiang@...gle.com>, Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jordan R Abrahams <ajordanr@...gle.com>, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>, Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, "Madhavan T . Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>, Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@....gouv.fr>, Scott Shell <scottsh@...rosoft.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>, Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>, Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>, Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v19 1/5] exec: Add a new AT_CHECK flag to execveat(2) On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 07:53:10PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 05:04:03PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 09:01:33PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > > Add a new AT_CHECK flag to execveat(2) to check if a file would be > > > allowed for execution. The main use case is for script interpreters and > > > dynamic linkers to check execution permission according to the kernel's > > > security policy. Another use case is to add context to access logs e.g., > > > which script (instead of interpreter) accessed a file. As any > > > executable code, scripts could also use this check [1]. > > > > > > This is different than faccessat(2) which only checks file access > > > rights, but not the full context e.g. mount point's noexec, stack limit, > > > and all potential LSM extra checks (e.g. argv, envp, credentials). > > > Since the use of AT_CHECK follows the exact kernel semantic as for a > > > real execution, user space gets the same error codes. > > > > Nice! I much prefer this method of going through the exec machinery so > > we always have a single code path for these kinds of checks. > > > > > Because AT_CHECK is dedicated to user space interpreters, it doesn't > > > make sense for the kernel to parse the checked files, look for > > > interpreters known to the kernel (e.g. ELF, shebang), and return ENOEXEC > > > if the format is unknown. Because of that, security_bprm_check() is > > > never called when AT_CHECK is used. > > > > I'd like some additional comments in the code that reminds us that > > access control checks have finished past a certain point. > > Where in the code? Just before the bprm->is_check assignment? Yeah, that's what I was thinking. -- Kees Cook
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.