| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:53:03 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>, akpm@...l.org, kjhall@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, safford@...son.ibm.com Subject: Re: mprotect abuse in slim On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Hmm, would revokefs need to be explicitly stacked on top of the fs, > or could we just swap out fdt[fd] for the revokefs file, and have > the revokefs file's private data point to the original inode, with > it's write function returning an error, and read being passed through? Swapping the fds should be sufficient. On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Do you (or hch) then have a problem with these functions (sitting either > in fs/revoke.c or fs/file_table.c) calling mprotect to remove the write > permission from the mmap'ed segment? i.e. was the main objection to > mprotect being called from "just anywhere"? I haven't seen the original patches so I don't knw what hch objected to. It is not enough that we do mprotect, tough. We also must make sure the task can't do mprotect on its own nor remap the memory region. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists