linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

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]

Message-Id: <1156097013.4051.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:03:33 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc:	Alex Riesen <fork0@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Willy Tarreau <wtarreau@...a.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

Ar Sul, 2006-08-20 am 19:30 +0400, ysgrifennodd Solar Designer:
> The problem is that there are lots of privileged userspace programs that
> do not bother to check the return value from set*uid() calls (or
> otherwise check that the calls succeeded) before proceeding with work
> that is only safe to do with the *uid switched as intended.

People keep saying this but we seem short of current, commonly shipped
examples. And quite frankly any code that doesn't check setuid returns
is unlikely to be fit for purpose in any other way and presumably has
never been adequately audited.

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/