linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exec: Make do_coredump more robust and safer when using pipes in core

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]

Date:	Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:15:29 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, earl_chew@...lent.com,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Make do_coredump more robust and safer when using pipes in core_pattern

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 03:06:25PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> writes:
> 
> >> Andrew should I toss all 100 or so patches over the wall to you
> >> and your -mm tree?  Or should I maintain a public git tree based
> >> at 2.6.31-rc1?  Get it into linux-next and ask Linus to pull it when
> >> the merge window comes?
> >
> > What do these 100 odd patches do exactly? 
> 
> Mostly a fine grained killing of ctl_name, and strategy.

Ok.

The only issue is -- assuming we convert that over to DEFINE_SYSCTL
too (which I think would be much nicer) all tee maintainers would
need to process two patches. So perhaps it would be better to combine
this into a single update?

> > Then the binary sysctls could be handled by a global table
> > in a separate file like you described
> 
> Getting the binary sysctl crud out of the core path should
> happen first.  That is just a handful of patches.

Agreed. It should be just a separate table.

> > the current interfaces are not great, but could be probably kept.
> 
> Things like register_sysctl_path can be greatly improved.  Now
> that we don't have to worry about the binary paths.

With a module DEFINE_SYSCTL() only truly dynamic sysctls (like
the network per device sysctls) would need that anyways; the
far majority of callers wouldn't need to call any functions.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/