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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:01:28 -0500 From: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, tgraf@...radead.org, eugeneteo@...nel.org, kees.cook@...onical.com, mingo@...e.hu, davem@...emloft.net, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kptr_restrict for hiding kernel pointers On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 17:26 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote: > On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:20:34 EST, Dan Rosenberg said: > > > @@ -1035,6 +1038,26 @@ char *pointer(const char *fmt, char *buf, char *end, void *ptr, > > return buf + vsnprintf(buf, end - buf, > > ((struct va_format *)ptr)->fmt, > > *(((struct va_format *)ptr)->va)); > > + case 'K': > > + /* > > + * %pK cannot be used in IRQ context because it tests > > + * CAP_SYSLOG. > > + */ > > + if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq() || in_nmi()) > > + WARN_ONCE(1, "%%pK used in interrupt context.\n"); > > Should this then continue on and test CAP_SYSLOG anyhow, or should it > return a "" or or "<invalid>" or something? This is a valid point. I'll resend a new version shortly that defaults to zeroing pointers if it's used incorrectly without relying on capability checks. Thanks, Dan -- 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