Re: [RFC PATCH v19 2/5] security: Add new SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK and SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT securebits

[Steve Dower]

On 10/07/2024 10:58, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:57:43PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > > Hmm, I'm not sure this "CHECK=0, RESTRICT=1" configuration would make
> > > sense for a dynamic linker except maybe if we want to only allow static
> > > binaries?
> > >
> > > The CHECK and RESTRICT securebits are designed to make it possible a
> > > "permissive mode" and an enforcement mode with the related locked
> > > securebits.  This is why this "CHECK=0, RESTRICT=1" combination looks a
> > > bit weird.  We can replace these securebits with others but I didn't
> > > find a better (and simple) option.  I don't think this is an issue
> > > because with any security policy we can create unusable combinations.
> > > The three other combinations makes a lot of sense though.
> > If we need only handle 3  combinations,  I would think something like
> > below is easier to understand, and don't have wield state like
> > CHECK=0, RESTRICT=1
>
> The "CHECK=0, RESTRICT=1" is useful for script interpreter instances
> that should not interpret any command from users e.g., but only execute
> script files.

I see this case as being most relevant to something that doesn't usually 
need any custom scripts, but may have it. For example, macros in a 
document, or pre/post-install scripts for a package manager.

For something whose sole purpose is to execute scripts, it doesn't make 
much sense. But there are other cases that can be reasonably controlled 
with this option.

Cheers,
Steve