Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC MAP_PRIVATE mmaps

Hello.

Hugh Dickins wrote:

since executables are typically mapped MAP_PRIVATE, I suspect
your patch will simply break mmap's intended MNT_NOEXEC check.

The one with ld.so you mean? But its a user-space issue,
I haven't seen anyone claiming the opposite (and you even
explicitly confirmed it is).

I think you need to face up to the fact that "noexec"
doesn't suit your mount, and just leave it at that.

But noone have answered this question:
Which configuration is more secure - the one where all
the user-writable fs are mounted with "noexec" (in old
sense of noexec), or the one without "noexec" at all
because I should no longer use it here and there (actually,
everywhere)?

But I do concede that I'm reluctant to present that patch Alan
encouraged, adding a matching MNT_NOEXEC check to mprotect: it
would be consistent, and I do like consistency, but in this case
fear that change in behaviour may cause new userspace breakage.

I can't think of a single real-life example where it will
break something over whatever is broken already by the mmap
check. But I am not encouraging such a change of course.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC MAP_PRIVATE mmaps
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
  • [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC MAP_PRIVATE mmaps
    • From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC MAP_PRIVATE mmaps
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [NFS] [PATCH 009 of 11] knfsd: Allow max size of NFSd payload to be configured.
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Illustration of warning explosion silliness
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC MAP_PRIVATE mmaps
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC MAP_PRIVATE mmaps
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]