This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, vtv update] Fix /tmp directory issues in libvtv
- From: Caroline Tice <cmtice at google dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:07:56 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, vtv update] Fix /tmp directory issues in libvtv
- References: <CABtf2+SE75qwSodDpFjCEQ-DVFtY4B4dhVgMopNUA9z3FaCXRQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <520494FD dot 5030207 at redhat dot com> <CABtf2+SzFffNo78Ey9sr=wsrm8-5_3DzYAE6LALkYu06fHeHfQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5207EE34 dot 6000409 at redhat dot com> <CABtf2+Sqm2PrKoGmug-FGveWze447uoTgzmmtJkWWgOQNHgBWA at mail dot gmail dot com> <5208C3BD dot 3090605 at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Florian Weimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 08/12/2013 12:39 AM, Caroline Tice wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> On 08/11/2013 01:08 AM, Caroline Tice wrote:
>>>> OK, I have removed the attempt to use $HOME for the logs; they will
>>>> now either go into the directory specified by the environment variable
>>>> VTV_LOGS_DIR, or they will go into the current directory. I also
>>>> added code to use secure_getenv, rather than getenv, if it is
>>>> available. Is this patch ok to commit?
>>> + logs_prefix = secure_getenv ("VTV_LOGS_DIR");
>>> + if (!logs_prefix || strlen (logs_prefix) == 0)
>>> + logs_prefix = (char *) ".";
>>> Hmm. If you fall back to the current directory, using secure_getenv
>>> have the intended security effect. I wonder if we can simply label this
>>> functionality as unsafe for SUID/SGID programs, like we (hopefully) do
>> I am unclear how to do this? Could you elaborate please?
> I think it boils whether vtv is a debugging feature (like mudflap or
> profiling), or supposed to be active in production code (like the stack
> protector). If the latter, we have to go to greater lengths in restricting
> the logging feature when running SUID/SGID.
The feature is supposed to be active in production code (like the
> Looks like we lost the Cc: to gcc-patches. Not sure if this is intentional.
> Feel free to add it again.
-- Caroline Tice
> Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team