Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Nov 2022 19:45:42 -0700 | From | Kees Cook <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm/memfd: MFD_NOEXEC for memfd_create |
| |
On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 04:14:39PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote: > Sorry for the long overdue reply.
No worries! I am a fan of thread necromancy. :)
> [...] > 1> memfd_create: > Add two flags: > #define MFD_EXEC 0x0008 > #define MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL 0x0010 > This lets application to set executable bit explicitly. > (If application set both, it will be rejected)
So no MFD_NOEXEC without seal? (I'm fine with that.)
> 2> For old application that doesn't set executable bit: > Add a pid name-spaced sysctl.kernel.pid_mfd_noexec, with:
bikeshed: vm.memfd_noexec (doesn't belong in "kernel", and seems better suited to "vm" than "fs")
> value = 0: Default_EXEC > Honor MFD_EXEC and MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL > When none is set, will fall back to original behavior (EXEC)
Yeah. Rephrasing for myself to understand more clearly:
"memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL act like MFD_EXEC was set."
> value = 1: Default_NOEXEC_SEAL > Honor MFD_EXEC and MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL > When none is set, will default to MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL
"memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL act like MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL was set."
Also, I think there should be a pr_warn_ratelimited() when memfd_create() is used without either bit, so that there is some pressure to please adjust their API calls to explicitly set a bit.
> 3> Add a pid name-spaced sysctl kernel.pid_mfd_noexec_enforced: with: > value = 0: default, not enforced. > value = 1: enforce NOEXEC_SEAL (overwrite everything)
How about making this just mode "value 2" for the first sysctl? "memfd_create() without MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL will be rejected."
-Kees
-- Kees Cook
| |