| 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: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:45:01 -0700 From: Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Yama: add PTRACE exception tracking Hi Christoph, On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:31:58AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Err, no. This is just a very clear sign that your ptrace restrictions > were completely wrong to start with and break applications left, right > and center. Just get rid of it instead of letting workarounds for your > bad design creep into the core kernel and applications. It's not my bad design; PTRACE is a terrible interface. In an effort to eliminate PTRACE, there are a few legitimate uses: direct debugging, and crash handlers. The crash handlers are an odd case because all they want is a backtrace and register details, but there's no way to do that on the fly without PTRACE, so that's how they've implemented it. In those cases, the crashing program knows who will attach to it, so there needs to be a safe way to declare that relationship instead of just giving up and saying "oh well, everything can PTRACE everything else". What is so objectionable about using a single PR_* value out of the 2147483614 available? -Kees -- Kees Cook Ubuntu Security Team -- 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