| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080716142022.GU5794@outflux.net> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:20:22 -0700 From: Kees Cook <kees@...flux.net> To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: useless kernel.maps_protect and more Hi, On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:11:35AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > commit 5096add84b9e96e2e0a9c72675c442fe5433388a > "proc: maps protection" > > commit 831830b5a2b5d413407adf380ef62fe17d6fcbf2 > "restrict reading from /proc/<pid>/maps to those who share ->mm or can ptrace pid" > > After Al added mm_for_maps(), maps_protect stopped controlling anything, > because they're run at ->show time, but mm_for_maps() checks are done at > ->start time. > > Unless anyone objects, I'll remove maps_protect. As long as this provides the same protections as maps_protect, I'm fine with it. I am a bit confused, though, since the reason I had to create the sysctl entry in the first place was because akpm objected to the maps file disappearing without a tunable. Has this objection gone away? > Also, logic behind second commit applies to /proc/*/pagemap , don't you > think? If that file shows memory location, yes. What about the numa maps that the first commit protects? Thanks, -Kees -- Kees Cook @outflux.net -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists