Thread (2 messages) flat view 2 messages, 2 authors, 2020-05-15

Re: How about just O_EXEC? (was Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] fs: Enable to enforce noexec mounts or file exec through O_MAYEXEC)

From: Florian Weimer <hidden>
Date: 2020-05-15 08:43:59
Also in: linux-fsdevel, linux-integrity, linux-security-module, lkml

* Kees Cook:
Maybe I've missed some earlier discussion that ruled this out, but I
couldn't find it: let's just add O_EXEC and be done with it. It actually
makes the execve() path more like openat2() and is much cleaner after
a little refactoring. Here are the results, though I haven't emailed it
yet since I still want to do some more testing:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=kspp/o_exec/v1
I think POSIX specifies O_EXEC in such a way that it does not confer
read permissions.  This seems incompatible with what we are trying to
achieve here.

Thanks,
Florian
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help