Given the following code containing errors, provide Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) identifiers and corresponding messages in JSON format. Each identified weakness should have a unique entry in the JSON array.
    Code: static int selinux_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
{
	const struct task_security_struct *old_tsec;
	struct task_security_struct *new_tsec;
	struct inode_security_struct *isec;
	struct common_audit_data ad;
	struct selinux_audit_data sad = {0,};
	struct inode *inode = bprm->file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
	int rc;

	rc = cap_bprm_set_creds(bprm);
	if (rc)
		return rc;

	/* SELinux context only depends on initial program or script and not
	 * the script interpreter */
	if (bprm->cred_prepared)
		return 0;

	old_tsec = current_security();
	new_tsec = bprm->cred->security;
	isec = inode->i_security;

	/* Default to the current task SID. */
	new_tsec->sid = old_tsec->sid;
	new_tsec->osid = old_tsec->sid;

	/* Reset fs, key, and sock SIDs on execve. */
	new_tsec->create_sid = 0;
	new_tsec->keycreate_sid = 0;
	new_tsec->sockcreate_sid = 0;

	if (old_tsec->exec_sid) {
		new_tsec->sid = old_tsec->exec_sid;
		/* Reset exec SID on execve. */
		new_tsec->exec_sid = 0;
	} else {
		/* Check for a default transition on this program. */
		rc = security_transition_sid(old_tsec->sid, isec->sid,
					     SECCLASS_PROCESS, NULL,
					     &new_tsec->sid);
		if (rc)
			return rc;
	}

	COMMON_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(&ad, PATH);
	ad.selinux_audit_data = &sad;
	ad.u.path = bprm->file->f_path;

	if (bprm->file->f_path.mnt->mnt_flags & MNT_NOSUID)
		new_tsec->sid = old_tsec->sid;

	if (new_tsec->sid == old_tsec->sid) {
		rc = avc_has_perm(old_tsec->sid, isec->sid,
				  SECCLASS_FILE, FILE__EXECUTE_NO_TRANS, &ad);
		if (rc)
			return rc;
	} else {
		/* Check permissions for the transition. */
		rc = avc_has_perm(old_tsec->sid, new_tsec->sid,
				  SECCLASS_PROCESS, PROCESS__TRANSITION, &ad);
		if (rc)
			return rc;

		rc = avc_has_perm(new_tsec->sid, isec->sid,
				  SECCLASS_FILE, FILE__ENTRYPOINT, &ad);
		if (rc)
			return rc;

		/* Check for shared state */
		if (bprm->unsafe & LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE) {
			rc = avc_has_perm(old_tsec->sid, new_tsec->sid,
					  SECCLASS_PROCESS, PROCESS__SHARE,
					  NULL);
			if (rc)
				return -EPERM;
		}

		/* Make sure that anyone attempting to ptrace over a task that
		 * changes its SID has the appropriate permit */
		if (bprm->unsafe &
		    (LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE | LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE_CAP)) {
			struct task_struct *tracer;
			struct task_security_struct *sec;
			u32 ptsid = 0;

			rcu_read_lock();
			tracer = ptrace_parent(current);
			if (likely(tracer != NULL)) {
				sec = __task_cred(tracer)->security;
				ptsid = sec->sid;
			}
			rcu_read_unlock();

			if (ptsid != 0) {
				rc = avc_has_perm(ptsid, new_tsec->sid,
						  SECCLASS_PROCESS,
						  PROCESS__PTRACE, NULL);
				if (rc)
					return -EPERM;
			}
		}

		/* Clear any possibly unsafe personality bits on exec: */
		bprm->per_clear |= PER_CLEAR_ON_SETID;
	}

	return 0;
} ; Sample JSON Format Confermily Expected output: "examples" => "cwe": "xxx"; "message": "xxx"
    
 'cwe': ['CWE-264'], 'message': 'Add PR_{GET,SET}_NO_NEW_PRIVS to prevent execve from granting privs

With this change, calling
  prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0)
disables privilege granting operations at execve-time.  For example, a
process will not be able to execute a setuid binary to change their uid
or gid if this bit is set.  The same is true for file capabilities.

Additionally, LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS is defined to ensure that
LSMs respect the requested behavior.

To determine if the NO_NEW_PRIVS bit is set, a task may call
  prctl(PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 0, 0, 0, 0);
It returns 1 if set and 0 if it is not set. If any of the arguments are
non-zero, it will return -1 and set errno to -EINVAL.
(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS behaves similarly.)

This functionality is desired for the proposed seccomp filter patch
series.  By using PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, it allows a task to modify the
system call behavior for itself and its child tasks without being
able to impact the behavior of a more privileged task.

Another potential use is making certain privileged operations
unprivileged.  For example, chroot may be considered "safe" if it cannot
affect privileged tasks.

Note, this patch causes execve to fail when PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS is
set and AppArmor is in use.  It is fixed in a subsequent patch.

Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Signed-off-by: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Acked-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

v18: updated change desc
v17: using new define values as per 3.4
Signed-off-by: James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>'