On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Dean Gaudet] > > /dev/shm should be mounted -o nosuid,nodev ... there's no reason to > > allow suid binaries or devices in /dev/shm. > > If I understand you correctly, you are proposing the change in the > patch I attach here. I'm not sure what the consequences would be, > though I agree that the "normal" /dev/shm/ should work with both > nosuid and nodev options enabled. This bug report is a variation of > bug #378280, where a similar request is made for /proc/ and /sys/. > There, -o noexec,nodev,nosuid is proposed. Is there any reason why > /dev/shm/ should allow executables?
i think the only way to get PROT_EXEC on a posix shm segment is to use mprotect... i'm just not sure anything actually does that. i've been running a busy amd64 unstable box with a patch like the one you suggest for 10 days now and haven't yet run into anything which is unhappy with noexec. but who knows what's out there. # grep shm /proc/mounts tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec 0 0 i think because shm_open itself makes no mention of being able to support executable shared memory i'd say we should put noexec on /dev/shm. -dean -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
