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: <20060821004537.GA22672@openwall.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:45:37 +0400
From:	Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To:	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Willy Tarreau <wtarreau@...a.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 10:23:35AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> How about going ahead with the uid change (if the current user is root) 
> BUT still return -EAGAIN.  That way programs that ignore the return 
> value will at least no longer have root privileges.

That's bad.  It will break legitimate programs that assume that the
UID switch has failed if set*uid() indicates so with its return value.

Alexander
-
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/