[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: fexecve, round 3
In article <20121125152520.GA17833%panix.com@localhost>,
Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 06:53:16PM +0100, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>> Let's try to move forward, and I will start will a sum up of what I
>> understand from the standard. It would be nice if we could at least
>> reach consensus on standard interpretation.
>I think your interpretation of the standard is correct. The
>particularly problematic part is:
>> O_EXEC is mutually exclusive with O_RDONLY, O_WRONLY, or O_RDWR
>This -- along with the basic shift from checking permissions when a handle
>to an object is obtained to checking them when it's used -- is exemplary of
>the poor design that seems to have gone into this set of "features".
>> Does everyone agrees on this interpretation? If we do, next steps are
>> - describe threats this introduce to chrooted processes
>> - decide if they are acceptable and if they are not, propose mitigation.
>I think you left out part of the solution space:
> - simply don't include this poorly-designed functionality in NetBSD.
Unless you want to change O_RDONLY to be non-zero and version all
the syscalls that use it :-)
Main Index |
Thread Index |