linux-kernel - Re: maps2-add-proc-pid-pagemap-interface.patch

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: <1184041730.6005.480.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:28:50 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: maps2-add-proc-pid-pagemap-interface.patch

On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 17:31 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > And how about "cpu_to_le16(1) == 1" instead of "ntohl(1) != 1"?
> 
> Why?

Using a networking macro to detect endianness is old school: we have the
nice explicit macros these days...

> > > +	while (pm.count > 0 && vma) {
> > > +		if (!ptrace_may_attach(task)) {
> > > +			ret = -EIO;
> > > +			goto out_mm;
> > > +		}
> > 
> > You already checked ptrace_may_attach() earlier in this function; do you
> > need to do that again?
> 
> I think so. Consider exec(). This whole area is full of interesting
> traps and it pays to be paranoid.

I don't think normal ptraces get cut on exec, so I'm not sure why this
should be different.  You could argue it would be more correct to check
at the open, in fact.

Cheers,
Rusty.

-
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/