From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754333Ab2KFIK5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2012 03:10:57 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49013 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753667Ab2KFIK4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2012 03:10:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:40:38 +0530 (IST) From: P J P X-X-Sender: pjp@javelin.pnq.redhat.com To: Kees Cook cc: Al Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Josh Triplett , Serge Hallyn , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, halfdog Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: do not leave bprm->interp on stack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20121024232032.GA31129@www.outflux.net> <20121025041620.GH2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121025120952.GI2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121025123843.GJ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121026183601.GR2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Kees, Al, +-- On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Kees Cook wrote --+ | If we change binfmt_script to not make a recursive call, then we still | need to keep the interp change somewhere off the stack. I still think | my patchset is the least bad. | | Al, do you have something else in mind? Guys, are there any updates further? Al, what's your take on the *rare* extra call to request_module? Thank you. -- Prasad J Pandit / Red Hat Security Response Team DB7A 84C5 D3F9 7CD1 B5EB C939 D048 7860 3655 602B