[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110816124600.GA15681@albatros>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:46:00 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: LD_PRELOAD and RTLD_NEXT support
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 07:47 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > 1) This check should be extended to support AT_SECURE (dumpable flag,
> > any LSM security domains, capabilities).
>
> Indeed, I'll add this. Do I just check for aux[AT_SECURE] != 0?
Looks like so.
glibc has some crazy dance with these flags and get*id() values, which
we patch in Owl ;-)
> > 2) As you check for (aux[0] & 0x7800) you assume some of these elements
> > can be absent. I feel it's wrong to assume you're not s*id'ed in this
>
> You misread the test. Absence of any of the 4 fields causes the
> program to be treated as if it were suid.
Ah, sure.
...btw, I feel it would be cleaner if you check for untrusted environment
at the time of initializing env_* variables. Currently there is not
much code between env_X assignment and zeroing, but it might be in the
future (with addition of ld features, etc.).
for (p = argv+i; ... ) {
if (is_secure_env)
env_path = ...
--
Vasiliy
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.
