Re: [PATCH v7 0/7] Add support for O_MAYEXEC
From: Deven Bowers <hidden>
Date: 2020-08-11 17:18:24
Also in:
linux-api, linux-fsdevel, linux-integrity, lkml
From: Deven Bowers <hidden>
Date: 2020-08-11 17:18:24
Also in:
linux-api, linux-fsdevel, linux-integrity, lkml
On 8/11/2020 1:48 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: [...snip]
quoted
quoted
It is a good practice to check as soon as possible such properties, and it may enables to avoid (user space) time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) attacks (i.e. misuse of already open resources).The assumption that security checks should happen as early as possible can actually cause security problems. For example, because seccomp was designed to do its checks as early as possible, including before ptrace, we had an issue for a long time where the ptrace API could be abused to bypass seccomp filters. Please don't decide that a check must be ordered first _just_ because it is a security check. While that can be good for limiting attack surface, it can also create issues when the idea is applied too broadly.I'd be interested with such security issue examples. I hope that delaying checks will not be an issue for mechanisms such as IMA or IPE: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1544699060.6703.11.camel@linux.ibm.com/ (local) Any though Mimi, Deven, Chrome OS folks?
I don't see an issue with IPE. As long as the hypothetical new syscall and associated security hook have the file struct available in the hook, it should integrate fairly easily. [...snip]