From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Mon May 15 19:13:03 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C77DD6E026; Mon, 15 May 2017 19:13:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DFFF19D3; Mon, 15 May 2017 19:13:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 52BDBB26; Mon, 15 May 2017 19:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 19:13:02 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Ian Lepore Cc: Konstantin Belousov , svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r318313 - head/libexec/rtld-elf Message-ID: <20170515191302.GA28684@FreeBSD.org> References: <201705151848.v4FImwMW070221@repo.freebsd.org> <20170515185236.GB1637@FreeBSD.org> <20170515190030.GG1622@kib.kiev.ua> <1494875335.59865.118.camel@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1494875335.59865.118.camel@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 19:13:03 -0000 On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:08:55PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 22:00 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > > Does this have any security implications? > > > > What do you mean ? > > Well, for example, it seems like it would allow anyone to execute a > binary even if the sysadmin had set it to -x specifically to prevent > people from running it. Right, that was something I was subconsciously worried of but could not word it in timely fashion. Thanks Ian. ./danfe