linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] coredump: ELF-FDPIC: enable to omit anonymous shared memory

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: <20070221115436.GA31332@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:54:36 -0600
From:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Kawai, Hidehiro" <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>,
	Satoshi OSHIMA <soshima@...hat.com>,
	"Hideo AOKI@...hat" <haoki@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] coredump: ELF-FDPIC: enable to omit anonymous shared memory

On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:33:31AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Kawai, Hidehiro <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com> wrote:
> 
> > Is coredump_setting_sem a global semaphore?  If so, it prevents concurrent
> > core dumping.
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Look again:
> 
> 	int do_coredump(long signr, int exit_code, struct pt_regs * regs)
> 	{
> 		<setup vars>
> 
>  >>>>		down_read(&coredump_settings_sem);
> 
> > Additionally, while some process is dumped, writing to
> > coredump_omit_anon_shared of unrelated process will be blocked.
> 
> Yes, but that's probably reasonable.  How likely (a) is a process to coredump,
> and (b) is a coredump to occur simultaneously with someone altering their
> settings?

And (c) altering the setting during a core dump going to produce an
unusable core dump.  I don't think the locking is that difficult to add
and it just makes sense.  I would venture a guess that it will take less
time to actually do the locking than to continue arguing it is not needed
when it clearly appears it is needed for even a small number of cases.

Thanks,
Robin
-
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/