linux-kernel - Re: [patch 42/94] [PATCH 11/44] [CVE-2009-0029] System call wrappers part 01

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: <20090116144304.GB1933@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:43:04 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...nel.org, Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
	Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
	Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Rodrigo Rubira Branco <rbranco@...checkpoint.com>,
	Jake Edge <jake@....net>, Eugene Teo <eteo@...hat.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, jbenc@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [patch 42/94] [PATCH 11/44] [CVE-2009-0029] System call
	wrappers part 01

On Fri 2009-01-16 12:24:35, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:00:29PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 
> > > 2.6.28-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> > > 
> > > ------------------
> > > 
> > > From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > commit 58fd3aa288939d3097fa04505b25c2f5e6e144d1 upstream.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> > 
> > That does not make review exactly easy. Would it be possible to
> > inline upstream comment in the commit message?
> > 
> > ...upstream commit message is empty :-(.
> 
> Yes, what should it contain anyway?
> "This converts the first 10 system calls to the system call wrapper
> infrastructure"? IMHO the subject says enough.

"This converts the first 10 system calls to the system call wrapper
infrastructure. This is neccessary because of <description of security
hole>. It is good idea to convert all syscalls and not only affected
ones for uniformity."

....at the very least.

> > > -asmlinkage long
> > > -sys_nanosleep(struct timespec __user *rqtp, struct timespec __user *rmtp)
> > > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(nanosleep, struct timespec __user *, rqtp,
> > > +		struct timespec __user *, rmtp)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct timespec tu;
> > >  
> > 
> > Is it strictly neccessary to modify all the syscalls? 
> 
> Not strictly necessary, but much easier to maintain in the long term.
> It's simply a just convert 'em all approach and never think again about
> this.

I believe we should go for minimal patch for -stable. This is really
huge.

> Plus the ugliness of the 64 bit parameter special case handling makes it
> unlikely that we will ever have again a discussion how a new system call
> should pass an loff_t.

								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/