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.