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: int cap_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
{
	const struct cred *old = current_cred();
	struct cred *new = bprm->cred;
	bool effective, has_cap = false;
	int ret;

	effective = false;
	ret = get_file_caps(bprm, &effective, &has_cap);
	if (ret < 0)
		return ret;

	if (!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT)) {
		/*
		 * If the legacy file capability is set, then don't set privs
		 * for a setuid root binary run by a non-root user.  Do set it
		 * for a root user just to cause least surprise to an admin.
		 */
		if (has_cap && new->uid != 0 && new->euid == 0) {
			warn_setuid_and_fcaps_mixed(bprm->filename);
			goto skip;
		}
		/*
		 * To support inheritance of root-permissions and suid-root
		 * executables under compatibility mode, we override the
		 * capability sets for the file.
		 *
		 * If only the real uid is 0, we do not set the effective bit.
		 */
		if (new->euid == 0 || new->uid == 0) {
			/* pP' = (cap_bset & ~0) | (pI & ~0) */
			new->cap_permitted = cap_combine(old->cap_bset,
							 old->cap_inheritable);
		}
		if (new->euid == 0)
			effective = true;
	}
skip:

	/* Don't let someone trace a set[ug]id/setpcap binary with the revised
	 * credentials unless they have the appropriate permit
	 */
	if ((new->euid != old->uid ||
	     new->egid != old->gid ||
	     !cap_issubset(new->cap_permitted, old->cap_permitted)) &&
	    bprm->unsafe & ~LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE_CAP) {
		/* downgrade; they get no more than they had, and maybe less */
		if (!capable(CAP_SETUID)) {
			new->euid = new->uid;
			new->egid = new->gid;
		}
		new->cap_permitted = cap_intersect(new->cap_permitted,
						   old->cap_permitted);
	}

	new->suid = new->fsuid = new->euid;
	new->sgid = new->fsgid = new->egid;

	if (effective)
		new->cap_effective = new->cap_permitted;
	else
		cap_clear(new->cap_effective);
	bprm->cap_effective = effective;

	/*
	 * Audit candidate if current->cap_effective is set
	 *
	 * We do not bother to audit if 3 things are true:
	 *   1) cap_effective has all caps
	 *   2) we are root
	 *   3) root is supposed to have all caps (SECURE_NOROOT)
	 * Since this is just a normal root execing a process.
	 *
	 * Number 1 above might fail if you don't have a full bset, but I think
	 * that is interesting information to audit.
	 */
	if (!cap_isclear(new->cap_effective)) {
		if (!cap_issubset(CAP_FULL_SET, new->cap_effective) ||
		    new->euid != 0 || new->uid != 0 ||
		    issecure(SECURE_NOROOT)) {
			ret = audit_log_bprm_fcaps(bprm, new, old);
			if (ret < 0)
				return ret;
		}
	}

	new->securebits &= ~issecure_mask(SECURE_KEEP_CAPS);
	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>'