[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAH8yC8kMGYxwNeYWDnRF3Qv-P9Oa-34B2sCAhCC+v8SshUms-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:01:54 -0500
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: monk@...oiled.info
Subject: Re: $ORIGIN rpath expansion without /proc: code looks wrong
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:09 PM Érico Nogueira <ericonr@...root.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 11:04 AM -03, Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
> > ...
> > Could somebody take a look at this and double-check that
> > this codepath makes sense?
>
> It does, but it might not be as robust as you wish. fixup_rpath() treats
> the RPATH entry as a single string, and does all $ORIGIN substitutions
> in one go (what splits the string by ":" is open_path()). This means
> that the entire RPATH entry containing $ORIGIN will be ignored if
> /proc/self/exe can't be accessed, despite one or more of them not
> depending on $ORIGIN.
This has come up before on the list. It is different behavior from
libc, and it may be CVE worthy if a down-level library is used when an
updated library is available but lost because the RPATH/RUNPATH is
discarded.
Jeff
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.
