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: <1156099006.4051.43.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:36:46 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>,
	Alex Riesen <fork0@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

Ar Sul, 2006-08-20 am 20:10 +0200, ysgrifennodd Willy Tarreau:
> So I think that while it's bad code in userland, a misunderstood kernel
> semantic caught the developpers. We can at least make the kernel help them.

Yeah we could. But unfortunately a competence test with the inability to
write C code isn't part of the Unix spec.

You can help them enormously using the gcc extensions so gcc warns about
any unchecked set*uid call, rather than redesigning expected behaviour
to cause obscure random kills that won't even be noticed/explained.

-
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/