From patchwork Sat May 9 19:40:17 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: "Eric W. Biederman" X-Patchwork-Id: 11538497 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D232517EF for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 19:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D60214D8 for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 19:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728182AbgEITnz (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2020 15:43:55 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:53792 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727938AbgEITny (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2020 15:43:54 -0400 Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXVNz-0002uX-Fb; Sat, 09 May 2020 13:43:47 -0600 Received: from ip68-227-160-95.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.160.95] helo=x220.xmission.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1jXVNy-0006US-Ht; Sat, 09 May 2020 13:43:47 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Cc: Linus Torvalds , Oleg Nesterov , Jann Horn , Kees Cook , Greg Ungerer , Rob Landley , Bernd Edlinger , , Al Viro , Alexey Dobriyan , Andrew Morton , Casey Schaufler , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Andy Lutomirski References: <87h7wujhmz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <87sgga6ze4.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 14:40:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87sgga6ze4.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> (Eric W. Biederman's message of "Fri, 08 May 2020 13:43:31 -0500") Message-ID: <87v9l4zyla.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-XM-SPF: eid=1jXVNy-0006US-Ht;;;mid=<87v9l4zyla.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.160.95;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19IOND8rj4bMCGwxstKDUfSmpiOWIeGpr4= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.160.95 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa08.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,XMNoVowels autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4998] * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa08 0; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: ; sa08 0; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *; X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 511 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.03 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 13 (2.6%), b_tie_ro: 12 (2.3%), parse: 0.81 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 2.3 (0.5%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.70 (0.1%), tests_pri_-1000: 3.6 (0.7%), tests_pri_-950: 1.26 (0.2%), tests_pri_-900: 1.10 (0.2%), tests_pri_-90: 160 (31.3%), check_bayes: 158 (31.0%), b_tokenize: 6 (1.1%), b_tok_get_all: 8 (1.6%), b_comp_prob: 2.2 (0.4%), b_tok_touch_all: 138 (26.9%), b_finish: 1.17 (0.2%), tests_pri_0: 311 (60.8%), check_dkim_signature: 0.43 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 2.7 (0.5%), poll_dns_idle: 1.13 (0.2%), tests_pri_10: 3.8 (0.7%), tests_pri_500: 7 (1.4%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: [PATCH 0/5] exec: Control flow simplifications X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org It is hard to follow the control flow in exec.c as the code has evolved over time and something that used to work one way now works another. This set of changes attempts to address the worst of that, to remove unnecessary work and to make the code a little easier to follow. The one rough point in my changes is cap_bprm_set_creds propbably needs a new name as I have taken it out of security_bprm_set_creds but my imagination failed to come up with anything better. Eric W. Biederman (5): exec: Call cap_bprm_set_creds directly from prepare_binprm exec: Directly call security_bprm_set_creds from __do_execve_file exec: Remove recursion from search_binary_handler exec: Allow load_misc_binary to call prepare_binfmt unconditionally exec: Move the call of prepare_binprm into search_binary_handler arch/alpha/kernel/binfmt_loader.c | 5 +---- fs/binfmt_em86.c | 7 +----- fs/binfmt_misc.c | 22 +++--------------- fs/binfmt_script.c | 5 +---- fs/exec.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------ include/linux/binfmts.h | 11 ++------- include/linux/security.h | 2 +- security/apparmor/domain.c | 3 --- security/commoncap.c | 1 - security/selinux/hooks.c | 2 -- security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 3 --- security/tomoyo/tomoyo.c | 6 ----- 12 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-) --- I think this is correct set of changes that makes things better but please look things over/review this code if you have any expertise in anything I am touching. Thank you, Eric