Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-37415-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 09:21:14 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kevin Locke <kevin@kevinlocke.name>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [6.8-rc1 Regression] Unable to exec apparmor_parser from
 virt-aa-helper
Message-ID: <202401240916.044E6A6A7A@keescook>
References: <ZbE4qn9_h14OqADK@kevinlocke.name>
 <202401240832.02940B1A@keescook>
 <CAHk-=wgJmDuYOQ+m_urRzrTTrQoobCJXnSYMovpwKckGgTyMxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wijSFE6+vjv7vCrhFJw=y36RY6zApCA07uD1jMpmmFBfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiZj-C-ZjiJdhyCDGK07WXfeROj1ACaSy7OrxtpqQVe-g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiZj-C-ZjiJdhyCDGK07WXfeROj1ACaSy7OrxtpqQVe-g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:10:58AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 08:54, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. That whole thing is disgusting. I think it should have checked
> > FMODE_EXEC, and I have no idea why it doesn't.
> 
> Maybe because FMODE_EXEC gets set for uselib() calls too? I dunno. I
> think it would be even better if we had the 'intent' flags from
> 'struct open_flags' available, but they aren't there in the
> file_open() security chain.

I think there were other problems that I might have already fixed when I
reorganized things in commit 0fd338b2d2cd ("exec: move path_noexec() check
earlier") to more correctly map to LSM checks.

> Anyway, moving current->in_execve earlier looks fairly trivial, but I
> worry about the randomness. I'd be *so*( much happier if this crazy
> flag went away, and it got changed to look at the open intent instead.
> 
> Attached patch is ENTIRELY UNTESTED. And disgusting.

I opted to tie "current->in_execve" lifetime to bprm lifetime just to
have a clean boundary (i.e. strictly in alloc/free_bprm()).

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook