[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110127002936.GG4981@outflux.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:29:36 -0800
From: Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
Eugene Teo <eugeneteo@...nel.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use %pK for /proc/kallsyms and /proc/modules
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 03:57:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:10:58 -0800
> Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of messing with permissions on these files,
>
> This implies that the patch alters permission handling, only it
> doesn't. But I worked it out!
Ah yeah, this was related to the earlier attempts to remove the contents
of, or set permissions on, /proc/kallsyms.
> > Note that this changes %x to %p, so some legitimately 0 values in
> > /proc/kallsyms would have changed from 00000000 to "(null)". To avoid
> > this, "(null)" is not used when using the "K" format. Anything parsing
> > such addresses should have no problem with this change. (Thanks to Joe
> > Perches for the suggestion.)
>
> OK, so what applications did this patch just break?
I'm not aware of any breakage as a result of this yet.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team
--
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