diff mbox series

elf: Remove __libc_enable_secure_decided

Message ID 20220417225240.1656529-1-maskray@google.com
State Superseded
Headers
Series elf: Remove __libc_enable_secure_decided |

Checks

Context Check Description
dj/TryBot-apply_patch success Patch applied to master at the time it was sent
dj/TryBot-32bit success Build for i686

Commit Message

Fangrui Song April 17, 2022, 10:52 p.m. UTC 
  No functional change. __libc_enable_secure_decided is always 0 since
73fc4e28b9464f0e13edc719a5372839970e7ddb.
---
 elf/enbl-secure.c | 7 ++-----
 include/unistd.h  | 1 -
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Florian Weimer April 18, 2022, 10 a.m. UTC | #1 
* Fangrui Song:

> No functional change. __libc_enable_secure_decided is always 0 since
> 73fc4e28b9464f0e13edc719a5372839970e7ddb.
> ---
>  elf/enbl-secure.c | 7 ++-----
>  include/unistd.h  | 1 -
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/elf/enbl-secure.c b/elf/enbl-secure.c
> index aa2a0bd877..6a0a6d0f0f 100644
> --- a/elf/enbl-secure.c
> +++ b/elf/enbl-secure.c
> @@ -26,15 +26,12 @@
>  #include <startup.h>
>  #include <libc-internal.h>
>  
> -/* If nonzero __libc_enable_secure is already set.  */
> -int __libc_enable_secure_decided;
>  /* Safest assumption, if somehow the initializer isn't run.  */
>  int __libc_enable_secure = 1;
>  
>  void
>  __libc_init_secure (void)
>  {
> -  if (__libc_enable_secure_decided == 0)
> -    __libc_enable_secure = (startup_geteuid () != startup_getuid ()
> -			    || startup_getegid () != startup_getgid ());
> +  __libc_enable_secure = (startup_geteuid () != startup_getuid ()
> +			  || startup_getegid () != startup_getgid ());
>  }

Thanks for catching this in time before a release, this would have
turned into a minor security vulnerability.

__libc_init_secure should not overwrite __libc_enable_secure on Linux
because _dl_aux_init in dl-support.c already initializes it, and the
real vs effective check does not always yield the right results (it
exits AT_SECURE mode for a pure capabilities-based transition, for
example).

Hurd already overrides __libc_init_secure with an empty function.  I
think we should remove it completely.  Then we can also simply
<startup.h> a bit, I think.  Would you be able to write a patch along
those lines, or should I work on this?

Thanks,
Florian
Fangrui Song April 18, 2022, 11:49 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 3:00 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * Fangrui Song:
>
> > No functional change. __libc_enable_secure_decided is always 0 since
> > 73fc4e28b9464f0e13edc719a5372839970e7ddb.
> > ---
> >  elf/enbl-secure.c | 7 ++-----
> >  include/unistd.h  | 1 -
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/elf/enbl-secure.c b/elf/enbl-secure.c
> > index aa2a0bd877..6a0a6d0f0f 100644
> > --- a/elf/enbl-secure.c
> > +++ b/elf/enbl-secure.c
> > @@ -26,15 +26,12 @@
> >  #include <startup.h>
> >  #include <libc-internal.h>
> >
> > -/* If nonzero __libc_enable_secure is already set.  */
> > -int __libc_enable_secure_decided;
> >  /* Safest assumption, if somehow the initializer isn't run.  */
> >  int __libc_enable_secure = 1;
> >
> >  void
> >  __libc_init_secure (void)
> >  {
> > -  if (__libc_enable_secure_decided == 0)
> > -    __libc_enable_secure = (startup_geteuid () != startup_getuid ()
> > -                         || startup_getegid () != startup_getgid ());
> > +  __libc_enable_secure = (startup_geteuid () != startup_getuid ()
> > +                       || startup_getegid () != startup_getgid ());
> >  }
>
> Thanks for catching this in time before a release, this would have
> turned into a minor security vulnerability.
>
> __libc_init_secure should not overwrite __libc_enable_secure on Linux
> because _dl_aux_init in dl-support.c already initializes it, and the
> real vs effective check does not always yield the right results (it
> exits AT_SECURE mode for a pure capabilities-based transition, for
> example).
>
> Hurd already overrides __libc_init_secure with an empty function.  I
> think we should remove it completely.  Then we can also simply
> <startup.h> a bit, I think.  Would you be able to write a patch along
> those lines, or should I work on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>

Thanks for the analysis! I debugged it a bit and understand it better now.
Sent https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2022-April/137942.html
for clean-up.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/elf/enbl-secure.c b/elf/enbl-secure.c
index aa2a0bd877..6a0a6d0f0f 100644
--- a/elf/enbl-secure.c
+++ b/elf/enbl-secure.c
@@ -26,15 +26,12 @@ 
 #include <startup.h>
 #include <libc-internal.h>
 
-/* If nonzero __libc_enable_secure is already set.  */
-int __libc_enable_secure_decided;
 /* Safest assumption, if somehow the initializer isn't run.  */
 int __libc_enable_secure = 1;
 
 void
 __libc_init_secure (void)
 {
-  if (__libc_enable_secure_decided == 0)
-    __libc_enable_secure = (startup_geteuid () != startup_getuid ()
-			    || startup_getegid () != startup_getgid ());
+  __libc_enable_secure = (startup_geteuid () != startup_getuid ()
+			  || startup_getegid () != startup_getgid ());
 }
diff --git a/include/unistd.h b/include/unistd.h
index 7090169601..af795a37c8 100644
--- a/include/unistd.h
+++ b/include/unistd.h
@@ -192,7 +192,6 @@  libc_hidden_proto (__tcsetpgrp)
    and some functions contained in the C library ignore various
    environment variables that normally affect them.  */
 extern int __libc_enable_secure attribute_relro;
-extern int __libc_enable_secure_decided;
 rtld_hidden_proto (__libc_enable_secure)