[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:30:52 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Healing the bash fork
On 09/30/2014 05:11 AM, gremlin@...mlin.ru wrote:
> On 29-Sep-2014 22:34:20 -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> >> What is the motivation to not store executable code (functions)
> >> differently from standard variables?
>
> > What would you use for such a store, considering the environment
> > is the only portable way to pass this information from one process
> > to another in the general case, and support the current set of
> > use cases?
>
> C.O. to the rescue: temporary file.
You cannot use a named temporary file because the creator does not know
its required lifetime. That's a challenge all solutions not based on
the process environment will face.
Theoretically, you could pass an unnamed temporary file via a file
descriptor, and communicate the descriptor number in some safe way (but
what's that, if you don't trust the environment?). But that's going to
be far less interoperable than what we currently have, and barely more
secure.
> If one shell instance needs to pass some functions to another, it
> could dump those functions to a temporary file and pass the --load
> (or, better, --load-functions) options with a filename parameter.
We need to keep support exporting functions to grandchildren through
non-bash processes (that is, bash -> some-other-program -> bash).
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
