linux-kernel - Re: Is it legal to return positive value when do

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:48:07 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is it legal to return positive value when do_execve() succeeds?

KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Thus, I think retval could be
> > ELF_PAGEALIGN(elf_bss + load_bias) if elf_bss + load_bias is bogus.
> 
> What's mean bogus?
> do_brk() call get_unmapped_area() and it check an argument is correctly
> unmapped and userland address. If elf_bss + load_bias point to invalid
> address, set_brk doesn't return elf_bss+load_bias.
> 
> 
> > I'm OK with this if it is guaranteed that elf_bss + load_bias is always valid
> > and set_brk() never returns ELF_PAGEALIGN(elf_bss + load_bias).
> 
> I think elf_bss + load_bias could be invalid (i.e. >TASK_SIZE). 
> but set_brk can detect it.
> 

Indeed. Then, we can replace BAD_ADDR() with IS_ERR_VALUE() as you proposed.



Well... who returns positive value when do_execve() succeeds? Nobody?
Then, I wonder why search_binary_handler() is designed to return positive value...
--
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/