Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Stas Sergeev wrote:
Not really. If you want to do something along those lines it would be better to add a new open flag called something like O_RDEXONLY which would require r-x effective file permissions, and allow PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC mmaps (though for that to be really useful, you'd need to make an O_RDONLY fd not allow PROT_EXEC mmaps, which would break a few things).
It will break _many_ things - my intention is to find a
solution for ld.so that won't break things at all.

Yeah, sorry about that. I was using ironic understatement, but it's not something that comes across well in email.

But your idea about playing with the flags is interesting.
What if the currently-unused MAP_EXECUTABLE flag became a
way for the program to express that it needs an exec perm,
and so the mmap should fail if there is none? I think ld.so
will be happy using such a flag...

Yes, but it doesn't solve the fact that there isn't really anything special about ld.so, so putting special checks into it doesn't really solve the overall problem.

Also, I guess there's the general question of what the noexec mount flag really means? Does it mean "make the execve syscall fail", or does it mean "no bits on this filesystem may be interpreted as instructions". The former is simple to implement, but probably not very useful; the latter is not possible to implement in general.

   J

-
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/

[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]
  Powered by Linux