Re: [PATCHv10 man-pages 5/5] execveat.2: initial man page for execveat(2)

[Rich Felker]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 04:27:23PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 04:14:57AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> >> Except that if your interpreter does stat(2) (or access(2), or getxattr(2),
> >> etc.) before bothering with open(2), you'll get screwed.
> >
> > Yes, but I think that would be very bad interpreter design.
> > stat/getxattr/access/whatever followed by open is always a TOCTOU
> > race. The correct sequence of actions is always open followed by
> > fstat/fgetxattr/...
> 
> Sigh.  I think everyone who has looked at this has been blind.
> 
> If userspace is reasonable all we have to do is fix /proc/self/exe
> for shell scripts to point at the actual script,
> and then pass /proc/self/exe on the shell scripts command line.
> 
> At a practical level we have to worry about backwards compability and
> chroot jails.  But the existence of a clean implementation with
> /proc/self/exe serves a proof of concept that it would not be too
> difficult.  When someone cares enough to implement it.

Is /proc/self/exe a "magic symlink" that's bound to the inode, or just
a regular symlink? In the latter case it defeats the whole purpose of
using O_EXEC fds and fexecve rather than pathnames.

Rich
--
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/