Re: [PATCH] fexecve

[Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>]

On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:

> Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
> 
>> The point is, this is interesting functionality that makes something
>> new possible that is potentially useful from a security point of view,
>> but the new thing that's possible also breaks assumptions that existing
>> code may rely on to get security guarantees it wants.  
> 
> Well, it is standard mandated and we want to be standard compliant. If
> it is a security hazard, we can have a sysctl to disable the system
> call. Something like
> sysctl -w kern.fexecve = 0 and it would return ENOSYS.

Well, I kind of agree that in a chroot, it should not be able to invoke 
setuid/setgid programs nor programs not owned by root nor a FD opened
for write.