lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/5] fs: Add support for an O_MAYEXEC flag on sys_open()
On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 03:07:39AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2019-09-06, Mickaël Salaün <mickael.salaun@ssi.gouv.fr> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/09/2019 17:56, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > Let's assume I want to add support for this to the glibc dynamic loader,
> > > while still being able to run on older kernels.
> > >
> > > Is it safe to try the open call first, with O_MAYEXEC, and if that fails
> > > with EINVAL, try again without O_MAYEXEC?
> >
> > The kernel ignore unknown open(2) flags, so yes, it is safe even for
> > older kernel to use O_MAYEXEC.
>
> Depends on your definition of "safe" -- a security feature that you will
> silently not enable on older kernels doesn't sound super safe to me.
> Unfortunately this is a limitation of open(2) that we cannot change --
> which is why the openat2(2) proposal I've been posting gives -EINVAL for
> unknown O_* flags.
>
> There is a way to probe for support (though unpleasant), by creating a
> test O_MAYEXEC fd and then checking if the flag is present in
> /proc/self/fdinfo/$n.

Which Florian said they can't do for various reasons.

It is a major painpoint if there's no easy way for userspace to probe
for support. Especially if it's security related which usually means
that you want to know whether this feature works or not.

Christian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-06 19:21    [W:0.107 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site