[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 19:02:28 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Mickaël Salaün <mickael.salaun@....gouv.fr>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Philippe Trébuchet <philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>,
Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>,
Yves-Alexis Perez <yves-alexis.perez@....gouv.fr>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] Add support for O_MAYEXEC
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 09:17:07AM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> The goal of this patch series is to control script interpretation. A
> new O_MAYEXEC flag used by sys_open() is added to enable userland script
> interpreter to delegate to the kernel (and thus the system security
> policy) the permission to interpret scripts or other files containing
> what can be seen as commands.
I don't have a problem with the concept, but we're running low on O_ bits.
Does this have to be done before the process gets a file descriptor,
or could we have a new syscall? Since we're going to be changing the
interpreters anyway, it doesn't seem like too much of an imposition to
ask them to use:
int verify_for_exec(int fd)
instead of adding an O_MAYEXEC.
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.
