linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2

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:	Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:13:20 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	David Wagner <daw-usenet@...erner.cs.berkeley.edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2

Ar Llu, 2006-08-07 am 22:52 +0000, ysgrifennodd David Wagner:
> I'm still trying to understand the semantics of this proposed
> frevoke() implementation.  Can an attacker use this to forcibly
> close some other processes' file descriptor?  Suppose the target

No.

> process has fd 0 open and the attacker revokes the file corresponding
> to fd 0; what is the state of fd 0 in the target process?  Is it
> closed?  If the target process then open()s another file, does it

No its revoked. Just like a tty hangup

> get bound to fd 0?  (Recall that open() always binds to the lowest
> unused fd.)  If the answers are "yes", then the security consequences
> seem very scary.

Of course it doesn't. The BSD folk who added revoke were security people
not idiots.

Alan

-
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/