linux-kernel - Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scanning

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: <20080806113028.35CD831682F@pmx1.sophos.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:29:34 +0100
From:	tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	malware-list@...ts.printk.net
Subject: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for	on
 access scanning

Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote on 06/08/2008 12:10:58:

> On Wednesday 06 August 2008 19:44, tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com wrote:
> > Nick Piggin wrote on 05/08/2008 19:08:05:
> > > On Tuesday 05 August 2008 07:00, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > > 5. Define which filesystems are cacheable and which are not
> > >
> > > This is practically impossible to do completely without rewriting a 
lot
> > > of code (which will never be accepted). I don't see why it is needed
> >
> > though
> >
> > > as the filesystem cache is supposed to be kept coherent with disk.
> >
> > Problem is with network filesystems. So could it be a flag somewhere 
per
> > filesystem which would say something like "this filesystem guarantees
> > content of a file cannot change without get_write_access or
> > file_update_time being called locally"? That doesn't sound like a lot 
of
> > code so what am I missing?
> 
> Maybe... but that's not the same as what requirement 5 calls for.

I see what you mean, it should have been worded better. Nevertheless that 
is what was intended by it - to enable caching only on filesystems where 
it is safe to do so.
 
> But depending on exactly what semantics you really call for, it can get
> tricky to account for all of pagecache. Writes can happen through page
> tables or get_user_pages. True that a process has to at some point have
> write permission to the file, but the cache itself could be modified
> even after the file is closed and all mmaps disappear.

I don't have a very good understanding of the VM subsystem I must admit. 
So in other words with the current kernel file modification time is not 
necessarily correct - it represents when the file was last opened for 
modification, not when it was actually modified? (While those two points 
in time can be arbitrarily separated)

How would I use those methods for file modification? I am curious to make 
a test case..

Tvrtko


Sophos Plc, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon,
OX14 3YP, United Kingdom.

Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 348 3873 20.

--
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/