Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:25:15 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: 32/64 bitness restriction for pid namespace On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 01:46 +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > > My point is still that we should keep the only flag - lock current > > process and implement simple re-exec of vzctl. > > It's not so simple. It means, for example, that Owl built for x86_64 > should also contain a version of vzctl built for i686 - but it normally > lacks development tools and libraries for that (we don't currently do > multilib within a single build of Owl). > > > But other ways like workaround of multiple execve() calls are welcome. > > Given your discovery, maybe we should have execve() return an error code > like -EPERM, such that the library would not try the shell? Other way - do syscall(__NR_execve, ...) instead of execve(...). It is a bit ugly, but given it will be used in only one place (and explicitly by programs, whithout any wrapper) IMO it's acceptable. -- 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.