lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/9] exec_path 1/9: introduce ->exec_path and switch /proc/*/exe
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 03:04:22AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/binfmt_som.c b/fs/binfmt_som.c
> index eff74b9..6c56262 100644
> --- a/fs/binfmt_som.c
> +++ b/fs/binfmt_som.c
> @@ -174,6 +174,7 @@ static int map_som_binary(struct file *file,
> up_write(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> if (retval > 0 || retval < -1024)
> retval = 0;
> + set_task_exec_path(current, &bprm->file->f_path);

Oh? Even on failure exits?
> + if (!path->mnt || !path->dentry)
> + return -ENOENT;

Umm... I really don't like that. Note that path with NULL vfsmount
and non-NULL dentry should never happen. If anything, we ought
to add path_empty(path) (!(path)->mnt) and convert such places to it.

> +static inline void set_task_exec_path(struct task_struct *tsk, struct path *path)
> +{
> + struct path old_path;
> +
> + path_get(path);
> + task_lock(tsk);
> + old_path = tsk->exec_path;
> + tsk->exec_path = *path;
> + task_unlock(tsk);
> + path_put(&old_path);
> +}

Do we ever have a right to do that to anything other than current? Note
that fork() is a special case anyway...

> + set_task_exec_path(tsk, &(struct path){ .mnt = NULL, .dentry = NULL });

Ew...

> + get_task_exec_path(current, &p->exec_path);
> +

We already have that value sitting there, so why not get_path(&p->exec_path)?

The real problem I have with that we *really* can't umount the filesystem
that used to host the binary anymore. At all.

Frankly, I'm almost tempted to add explicit way to switch the damn thing
via /proc/self/something - e.g. allow a binary to write a pathname to
/proc/self/set_exec and have that switch the sucker. The interesting
part, of course, is figuring out the security implications of that...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-06 09:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans