[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:48:52 -0400
From: "Skyler Ferrante (RIT Student)" <sjf5462@....edu>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>, Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>, Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com, NRK <nrk@...root.org>,
Guillem Jover <guillem@...rons.org>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
libbsd@...ts.freedesktop.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Iker Pedrosa <ipedrosa@...hat.com>, Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Subject: Re: Re: Tweaking the program name for <err.h> functions
Hi Florian,
> it's not running SUID (in AT_SECURE mode)
I see. I didn't realize that it had different behavior for setuid/not
setuid. That makes sense though, sorry for the confusion.
Skyler
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:23 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> * Skyler Ferrante:
>
> > Hmm, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems you can close(fd) for
> > the standard fds and then call execve, and the new process image will
> > have no fd 0,1,2. I've tried this on a default Ubuntu 22.04 system.
> > This seems to affect shadow-utils and other setuid/setgid binaries.
> >
> > Here is a repo I built for testing,
> > https://github.com/skyler-ferrante/fd_omission/. What is the correct
> > glibc behavior? Am I misunderstanding something?
>
> If you run it under strace, it's not running SUID (in AT_SECURE mode).
> I'm not saying we don't have bugs (although we do have some end-to-end
> AT_SECURE tests in the testsuite, but probably not for this legacy
> behavior), just that this approach to testing is questionable.
>
> 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.
