Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:23:02 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: "Skyler Ferrante (RIT Student)" <sjf5462@....edu>
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

* 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.