Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce a way to expose the interpreted file with binfmt_misc

From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Mon Nov 13 2023 - 13:30:13 EST


"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 09/10/2023 14:37, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 02:07:16PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 07.09.23 22:24, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
>>>> Currently the kernel provides a symlink to the executable binary, in the
>>>> form of procfs file exe_file (/proc/self/exe_file for example). But what
>>>> happens in interpreted scenarios (like binfmt_misc) is that such link
>>>> always points to the *interpreter*. For cases of Linux binary emulators,
>>>> like FEX [0] for example, it's then necessary to somehow mask that and
>>>> emulate the true binary path.
>>>
>>> I'm absolutely no expert on that, but I'm wondering if, instead of modifying
>>> exe_file and adding an interpreter file, you'd want to leave exe_file alone
>>> and instead provide an easier way to obtain the interpreted file.
>>>
>>> Can you maybe describe why modifying exe_file is desired (about which
>>> consumers are we worrying? ) and what exactly FEX does to handle that (how
>>> does it mask that?).
>>>
>>> So a bit more background on the challenges without this change would be
>>> appreciated.
>>
>> Yeah, it sounds like you're dealing with a process that examines
>> /proc/self/exe_file for itself only to find the binfmt_misc interpreter
>> when it was run via binfmt_misc?
>>
>> What actually breaks? Or rather, why does the process to examine
>> exe_file? I'm just trying to see if there are other solutions here that
>> would avoid creating an ambiguous interface...
>>
>
> Thanks Kees and David! Did Ryan's thorough comment addressed your
> questions? Do you have any take on the TODOs?
>
> I can maybe rebase against 6.7-rc1 and resubmit , if that makes sense!
> But would be better having the TODOs addressed, I guess.

Currently there is a mechanism in the kernel for changing
/proc/self/exe. Would that be reasonable to use in this case?

It came from the checkpoint/restart work, but given that it is already
implemented it seems like the path of least resistance to get your
binfmt_misc that wants to look like binfmt_elf to use that mechanism.

Eric