Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 23:22:51 +0400
From: Solar Designer <>
Subject: Re: 32/64 bitness restriction for pid namespace


On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 08:55:02PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> I've decided to go with 2 flags of prctl() - whether 32 bit executable
> is allowed on the next execve(), whether 64 bit exec is allowed.  If set
> both, any bitness is allowed, and the bitness lock depends on the binary
> bitness.  If none set, don't lock at all.

Sounds good.

> 1) If execve() fails, e.g. because of missing binary, drop the flag or
> keep it?  I think dropping is safer.

I wouldn't call this safer, but it does feel more logical.

> 2) If the binary is non-ELF, e.g. a misc binary?  I think execve()
> should fail as we expect to run 64/32 bit ELF.

This makes sense to me.


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.