Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752651AbaJ0SEL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:04:11 -0400
Received: from mail-qa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.216.47]:43942 "EHLO
	mail-qa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752123AbaJ0SEE (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:04:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWbj=BTDyKqtbSKteANj3J3UFZnrvWv9DMosCoEZaSoeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1413978269-17274-1-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com>
 <1413978269-17274-2-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com> <CALCETrWbj=BTDyKqtbSKteANj3J3UFZnrvWv9DMosCoEZaSoeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:03:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHse=S-x6NKEn9EGFos6bS=asK-1mWCr0r9aji2a97_fgxU+Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 1/3] syscalls,x86: implement execveat() system call
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Meredydd Luff <meredydd@senatehouse.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:44 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com> wrote:
>> Add a new system execveat(2) syscall. execveat() is to execve() as
>> openat() is to open(): it takes a file descriptor that refers to a
>> directory, and resolves the filename relative to that.
>>
>
>>         bprm->file = file;
>> -       bprm->filename = bprm->interp = filename->name;
>> +       if (fd == AT_FDCWD || filename->name[0] == '/') {
>> +               bprm->filename = filename->name;
>> +       } else {
>> +               /*
>> +                * Build a pathname that reflects how we got to the file,
>> +                * either "/dev/fd/<fd>" (for an empty filename) or
>> +                * "/dev/fd/<fd>/<filename>".
>> +                */
>> +               pathbuf = kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_TEMPORARY);
>> +               if (!pathbuf) {
>> +                       retval = -ENOMEM;
>> +                       goto out_unmark;
>> +               }
>> +               bprm->filename = pathbuf;
>> +               if (filename->name[0] == '\0')
>> +                       sprintf(pathbuf, "/dev/fd/%d", fd);
>
> If the fd is O_CLOEXEC, then this will result in a confused child
> process.  Should we fail exec attempts like that for non-static
> programs?  (E.g. set filename to "" or something and fix up the binfmt
> drivers to handle that?)

Isn't it just scripts that get confused here (as normal executables don't
get to see brpm->filename)?

Given that we don't know which we have at this point, I'd suggest
carrying on regardless.  Or we could fall back to use the previous
best-effort d_path() code for O_CLOEXEC fds.  Thoughts?

>> +               else
>> +                       snprintf(pathbuf, PATH_MAX,
>> +                                "/dev/fd/%d/%s", fd, filename->name);
>
> Does this need to handle the case where the result exceeds PATH_MAX?

I guess we could kmalloc(strlen(filename->name) + 19) to avoid the
possibility of failure, but that just defers the inevitable -- the interpreter
won't be able to open the script file anyway.  But it would at least then
generate the appropriate error (ENAMETOOLONG rather than ENOENT).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/