linux-kernel - Re: [2.6 patch] unexport uts

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: <20080520183802.GA686@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2008 14:38:02 -0400
From:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...set.davemloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	systemtap@...rces.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] unexport uts_sem

Hi -

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 01:27:30PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Am I correct that this would makes it invalid for modules to call
> > utsname() (since the protective semaphore is now hidden)?
> 
> Yesm they should never had done that anyway.  The module support
> does it's own version checking already.

Sorry, I misspoke - this check is intended not to cross-check
kernel-devel and the kernel itself, but the debuginfo or similar data
that is given to describe target of a systemtap script.  I guess for
new enough kernels we'll just do that using buildid hash codes.

By the way, there do appear to be a few suspect in-tree users of
utsname() without uts_sem locking (usb/storage/usb.c, cifs/connect.c,
char/random.cc, fs/lockd/clntproc.c, ...).  If these need to be fixed,
then wouldn't uts_sem need to come back exported?

- FChE
--
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/