linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove BKL from sysctl(2)

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: <p73k5m0lrxq.fsf@crumb.suse.de>
Date:	23 Jan 2008 12:09:05 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove BKL from sysctl(2)

Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> 
> There are cases that updating the corepath name and dumping a core at the
> same moment can result in the wrong thing being exec()'d or a file being
> opened which is a mix of the old and new name and could go anywhere.
> 
> I see two variants on your patch that work
> 
> #1	Replace the lock_kernel with a sysctl_update mutex and fix both
> paths
> #2	Add locking specifically to the corename path

Doesn't that apply to pretty much all proc_dostring users, not just
corename? 

Some of them might be already broken if their readers don't take BKL.
Also possibly some of the proc_dointvec for multiple numbers.

-Andi
--
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/