[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 15:00:16 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>,
Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] sysctl: fix incorrect write position handling
On Thu, 1 May 2014 14:26:33 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> When writing to a sysctl string, each write, regardless of VFS position,
> began writing the string from the start. This meant the contents of
> the last write to the sysctl controlled the string contents instead of
> the first.
>
> This misbehavior was featured in an exploit against Chrome OS. While it's
> not in itself a vulnerability, it's a weirdness that isn't on the mind
> of most auditors: "This filter looks correct, the first line written
> would not be meaningful to sysctl" doesn't apply here, since the size
> of the write and the contents of the final write are what matter when
> writing to sysctls.
>
> This adds the sysctl kernel.sysctl_writes_strict to control the write
> behavior. The default (0) reports when VFS position is non-0 on a write,
> but retains legacy behavior, -1 disables the warning, and 1 enables the
> position-respecting behavior.
>
OK, let's try that. I added this paragraph to the patchset's overall
changelog:
: The long-term plan here is to wait for userspace to be fixed in response
: to the new warning and to then switch the default kernel behavior to the
: new position-respecting behavior.
I'm thinking we should use pr_warn_once() in warn_sysctl_write()? Otherwise
people will go and shut the thing up permanently and we'll lose the benefits.
--
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