> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 08:45:53PM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> > John Zolnowsky x69422/408-404-5064 wrote:
> >
> > >The general nature of mmapfd() mapping represents a possible solution
> > >to a concern being discussed in 2008/195. The issue is that
> > >interpreters other than rtld often have the equivalent of libraries,
> > >for example, perl's .pm and .pl or the shell "source" or "." commands.
> > >These extended forms of library are presently introduced into the
> > >process "execution" using general interfaces (open(), read()),
> > >precluding any reliable triggering for validition of the object. As
> > >much as mmapfd() provides a generalized mechanism for accessing these
> > >forms of libraries, it would serve as a enabler for validated
> > >execution.
The point of my asking for more time on the mmapfd case was to
ensure both teams say the other case. IMO, that has been satisfied
and both projects can proceed.
> > cat /etc/file | sh ???
> >
> > It seems to be that validated execution is somewhat missing the point
> > by focusing on "execution".
>
> Darren M. noticed this a while back and commented on this on the
> valex-discuss list, with no resolution. This week there's a more active
> discussion of the issue on that list.
For this further point, IMO this is
gw-0 Case boundaries relative to things like "cat foo | sh"
and is proper to discuss as part of the full review.
If you have architectural points, please bring them to the
review.
Gary..
P.S. I'm happy to proxy issue to the issues file for those who may not
have modify access rights if they are mailed privately to me.
