[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100623194145.GA19628@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:41:45 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sanitize task->comm to avoid leaking escape codes
On 06/23, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> @@ -956,7 +957,15 @@ void set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, char *buf)
> */
> memset(tsk->comm, 0, TASK_COMM_LEN);
> wmb();
Off-topic. I'd wish I could understand this barrier. Since the lockless
reader doesn't do rmb() I don't see how this can help. OTOH, I don't
understand why it is needed, we never change ->comm[TASK_COMM_LEN-1] == '0'.
> - strlcpy(tsk->comm, buf, sizeof(tsk->comm));
> +
> + /* sanitize non-printable characters */
> + for (i = 0; buf[i] && i < (sizeof(tsk->comm) - 1); i++) {
> + if (!isprint(buf[i]))
> + tsk->comm[i] = '?';
> + else
> + tsk->comm[i] = buf[i];
> + }
Personally I think this makes sense.
> -extern char *get_task_comm(char *to, struct task_struct *tsk);
> +#define get_task_comm(buf, task) get_task_comm_size(buf, sizeof(buf), task)
> +extern char *get_task_comm_size(char *to, size_t len, struct task_struct *tsk);
Oh, but this means that get_task_comm(ptr, task) doesn't work?
Oleg.
--
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