linux-kernel - Re: [AppArmor 38/45] AppArmor: Module and LSM hooks

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:	Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:30:49 +0200
From:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	jjohansen@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 38/45] AppArmor: Module and LSM hooks

On Monday 04 June 2007 15:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
> How will kernel work with very long paths? I'd suspect some problems,
> if path is 1MB long and I attempt to print it in /proc
> somewhere.

Pathnames are only used for informational purposes in the kernel, except in 
AppArmor of course. /proc only uses pathnames in a few places, 
but /proc/mounts will silently fail and produce garbage entries. That's not 
ideal of course; we should fix that somehow.

Note that this has nothing to do with the AppArmor discussion ...

> Perhaps vfs should be modified not to allow such crazy paths? But placing
> limit in aa is ugly. 

Dream on. Redefining fundamental vfs semantics is not an option; we should 
rather make sure that we fail gracefully. Considering the alternatives, I 
still prefer the configurable limit. That's way more useful than allowing a 
process to DOS the kernel with AppArmor.

Andreas
-
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/