Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220321161557.495388-1-mic@digikod.net> <202204041130.F649632@keescook>
 <CAHk-=wgoC76v-4s0xVr1Xvnx-8xZ8M+LWgyq5qGLA5UBimEXtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <816667d8-2a6c-6334-94a4-6127699d4144@digikod.net> <CAHk-=wjPuRi5uYs9SuQ2Xn+8+RnhoKgjPEwNm42+AGKDrjTU5g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjPuRi5uYs9SuQ2Xn+8+RnhoKgjPEwNm42+AGKDrjTU5g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:40:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjFQCUto1LGo8Cozhe1n9KjoU_99v94ubU_QWSQob7ntw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC)
To:     =?UTF-8?B?TWlja2HDq2wgU2FsYcO8bg==?= <mic@digikod.net>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christian Heimes <christian@python.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Tr=C3=A9buchet?= 
        <philippe.trebuchet@ssi.gouv.fr>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org>,
        Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@ssi.gouv.fr>,
        Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@ssi.gouv.fr>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 2:28 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>  (4) maybe we want to add a flag for the "euid vs real uid", and that
> would be in the "flags" field, since that changes the actual *lookup*
> semantics

Duh. We already did that long ago, and it's there as AT_EACCESS.

I should have just looked at the code more closely.

But that "you didn't even check what we already do, Linus" thing just
makes it even more obvious that all of this makes perfect sense in the
confines of access() already, and a new "check _these_ protections"
should just be a new mode bit.

                 Linus