linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: return -EPERM when preventing read of /proc/*/maps

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 3 Feb 2008 19:20:46 +0100
From:	"Guillaume Chazarain" <guichaz@...oo.fr>
To:	"Al Viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: return -EPERM when preventing read of /proc/*/maps

On Jan 4, 2008 4:19 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> Umm...  Actually, m_next() and m_stop() both appear to be too convoluted.
>
> * m_next() never gets v == NULL
> * the only reason why we do that mmput et.al. both from ->next() and
>   ->stop() is that we try to avoid having priv->mm; why bother?
> * why the _hell_ is proc_maps_private defined in include/linux/proc_fs.h,
>   of all places?
> * while we are at it, why is it in any header at all?  Having that sucker
>   in task_mmu.c and task_nommu.c would be more than enough (and we'd avoid
>   that ifdef in definition, while we are at it).
>
> How about this:

Hi Al,

Any update on this patch?
As you completely rewrote it, I thought you would take care of pushing
it forward.

Thanks.

-- 
Guillaume
--
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/