On March 25, 2025 7:46:15 AM PDT, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 03:15:06PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 2:30 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 02:21:36PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> > > On 03/25, Mateusz Guzik wrote: >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:10 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > On 03/24, Mateusz Guzik wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 7:28 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > So to me it would be better to have the trivial fix for stable, >> > > > > > > exactly because it is trivially backportable. Then cleanup/simplify >> > > > > > > this logic on top of it. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > So I got myself a crap testcase with a CLONE_FS'ed task which can >> > > > > > execve and sanity-checked that suid is indeed not honored as expected. >> > > > > >> > > > > So you mean my patch can't fix the problem? >> > > > >> > > > No, I think the patch works. >> > > > >> > > > I am saying the current scheme is avoidably hard to reason about. >> > > >> > > Ah, OK, thanks. Then I still think it makes more sense to do the >> > > cleanups you propose on top of this fix. >> > >> > I agree. We should go with Oleg's fix that in the old scheme and use >> > that. And then @Mateusz your cleanup should please go on top! >> >> Ok, in that case I'm gonna ship when I'm gonna ship(tm), maybe later this week. > >Ok, I've taken the patch as I've got a first round of fixes to send >already. Thanks! Acked-by: Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Kees Cook
