Hi,

I'm working on running postgresql in a chrooted filesystem.

/src/backend/commands/dbcommands.c makes use of system(3): as far as I
can see, this is only used to execute rm(1) and cp(1). I'd like to avoid
placing /bin/sh in the root of the filesystem (which system() requires).

I see four options:

1. Replace calls to system() with calls to execve(). This is feasible,
   as no complex commands are passed to the shell: just execution of
   programs with arguments.
2. Put /bin/sh in the filesystem. This is exactly what I am trying to
   avoid, if only because every piece of shellcode ends in "/bin/sh"
3. Make /bin/sh a simple wrapper which is only capable of executing one
   program. This is silly and unneccessary.
4. Move the functionality of cp(1) and rm(1) into the postgresql source
   tree. This is unneccessary extra work.

1 seems to be the cleanest option to me, and also removes the (marginal)
overhead of launching a shell. So, I shall be doing this for my own use,
unless I've overlooked a reason not to.

My question: would my patch be accepted if I submit it?

The only argument against it, that I'm aware of, is that system() is
ANSI, while execve() is POSIX: i.e. portability... does windows have
execve()? That could be done the way the current preprocessor
conditionals yield rmdir instead of rm.

Thanks,

- Tom
Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:12:55 +0100
Tom F <tom@printf.net>
execve() vs system() for chrooted filesystems in dbcommands.c
Tom F said:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on running postgresql in a chrooted filesystem.
>
> /src/backend/commands/dbcommands.c makes use of system(3): as far as I
> can see, this is only used to execute rm(1) and cp(1). I'd like to
> avoid placing /bin/sh in the root of the filesystem (which system()
> requires).
>
> I see four options:
>
> 1. Replace calls to system() with calls to execve(). This is feasible,
>   as no complex commands are passed to the shell: just execution of
>   programs with arguments.
> 2. Put /bin/sh in the filesystem. This is exactly what I am trying to
>   avoid, if only because every piece of shellcode ends in "/bin/sh"
> 3. Make /bin/sh a simple wrapper which is only capable of executing one
>   program. This is silly and unneccessary.
> 4. Move the functionality of cp(1) and rm(1) into the postgresql source
>   tree. This is unneccessary extra work.
>
> 1 seems to be the cleanest option to me, and also removes the
> (marginal) overhead of launching a shell. So, I shall be doing this for
> my own use, unless I've overlooked a reason not to.
>
> My question: would my patch be accepted if I submit it?
>
> The only argument against it, that I'm aware of, is that system() is
> ANSI, while execve() is POSIX: i.e. portability... does windows have
> execve()? That could be done the way the current preprocessor
> conditionals yield rmdir instead of rm.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Tom


system() is not the only call that uses the shell - popen() does too. It is
used extensively in initdb, for example, and would probably not be simple to
replace (especially on Windows) - simplicity was the reason it was used in
the first place.

cheers

andrew



Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:42:29 -0500 (CDT)
"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: execve() vs system() for chrooted filesystems in dbcommands.c