linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:48:41 +0400
From:	Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Alex Riesen <fork0@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Willy Tarreau <wtarreau@...a.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > sounds like a good argument to get the setuid functions marked
> > __must_check in glibc...

I agree.

On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:28:51AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> There are too many false positives.  E.g., in a SUID binaries switching
> back from a non-root UID to root will not fail.  Very common.

I wouldn't call those false positives.  They're warnings of poorly
written code that might fail with further changes to the kernel or with
custom security modules, or on another Unix-like platform.

Of course, the kernel or security modules must not change the semantics
arbitrarily yet expect old apps to work, however expecting that apps
honor return value from set*[ug]id() would be reasonable.  (The only
reason why it is not is that there are so many broken apps out there and
more are being developed.)

Alexander
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/