linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kptr_restrict for hiding kernel pointers from unprivileged users

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: <1291901420.4063.24.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:30:20 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kptr_restrict for hiding kernel pointers from
 unprivileged users

Le jeudi 09 décembre 2010 à 07:46 -0500, Dan Rosenberg a écrit :
> > > So caller can not block BH ?
> > > 
> > > This seems wrong to me, please consider :
> > > 
> > > normal process context :
> > > 
> > > spin_lock_bh() ...
> > > 
> > > for (...)  
> > > 	{xxx}printf( ...   "%pK"   ...)
> > > 
> > > spin_unlock_bh();
> > > 
> > 
> > I will think about this and address it.
> 
> Would you be happier if I omitted the in_interrupt() check entirely?
> 

Well, it seems difficult to make a check here, its a generic function
that happens to be used from different contexts.

Even using in_irq() might be a problem.



--
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/