Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87h7wujhmz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <87sgga6ze4.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <87v9l4zyla.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <877dx822er.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <87k10wysqz.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <87y2pcvz3b.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
In-Reply-To: <87y2pcvz3b.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 12:08:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiAG4tpPoWsWSqHbyMZDnWR8RHUpbwxB9_tdAqbE59NxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] exec: In bprm_fill_uid only set per_clear when
 honoring suid or sgid
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>,
        Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:53 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> It makes no sense to set active_per_clear when the kernel decides not
> to honor the executables setuid or or setgid bits.  Instead set
> active_per_clear when the kernel actually decides to honor the suid or
> sgid permission bits of an executable.

You seem to be confused about the naming yourself.

You talk about "active_per_clear", but the code is about "per_clear". WTF?

              Linus