Re: [PATCHv5 1/3] syscalls,x86: implement execveat() system call

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:44 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Add a new system execveat(2) syscall. execveat() is to execve() as
> openat() is to open(): it takes a file descriptor that refers to a
> directory, and resolves the filename relative to that.
>

>         bprm->file = file;
> -       bprm->filename = bprm->interp = filename->name;
> +       if (fd == AT_FDCWD || filename->name[0] == '/') {
> +               bprm->filename = filename->name;
> +       } else {
> +               /*
> +                * Build a pathname that reflects how we got to the file,
> +                * either "/dev/fd/<fd>" (for an empty filename) or
> +                * "/dev/fd/<fd>/<filename>".
> +                */
> +               pathbuf = kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_TEMPORARY);
> +               if (!pathbuf) {
> +                       retval = -ENOMEM;
> +                       goto out_unmark;
> +               }
> +               bprm->filename = pathbuf;
> +               if (filename->name[0] == '\0')
> +                       sprintf(pathbuf, "/dev/fd/%d", fd);

If the fd is O_CLOEXEC, then this will result in a confused child
process.  Should we fail exec attempts like that for non-static
programs?  (E.g. set filename to "" or something and fix up the binfmt
drivers to handle that?)

> +               else
> +                       snprintf(pathbuf, PATH_MAX,
> +                                "/dev/fd/%d/%s", fd, filename->name);

Does this need to handle the case where the result exceeds PATH_MAX?

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