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;
From:   ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
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>
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>
        <CAHk-=wiAG4tpPoWsWSqHbyMZDnWR8RHUpbwxB9_tdAqbE59NxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 14:21:57 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiAG4tpPoWsWSqHbyMZDnWR8RHUpbwxB9_tdAqbE59NxA@mail.gmail.com>
        (Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu, 28 May 2020 12:08:02 -0700")
Message-ID: <875zcfvp9m.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] exec: In bprm_fill_uid only set per_clear when honoring suid or sgid
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> 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?

I figured out how to kill active_per_clear see (3/11) and I failed to
update the patch description here.

I think active_ is a louzy suffix but since it all goes away in patch 3
when I remove the recomputation and the need to have two versions of the
setting I think it is probably good enough.

Eric