[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1299275042.2071.1422.camel@dan>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:44:02 -0500
From: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make /proc/slabinfo 0400
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 23:30 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Right. So you fill a slab with objects A that you want to overflow
> (struct shmid_kernel in the example exploit) then free one of them,
> allocate object B, smash it (and the next object), and find the
> smashed object A.
>
> But doesn't that make the whole /slab/procinfo discussion moot? You
> can always use brute force to allocate N objects (where N is larger
> than max objects in a slab) and then just free nth object that's most
> likely to land on the slab you have full control over (as explained by
> Matt).
>
> Pekka
This is a good point, and one that I've come to accept as a result of
having this conversation. Consider the patch dropped, unless there are
other reasons I've missed. I still think it's worth brainstorming
techniques for hardening the kernel heap in ways that don't create
performance impact, but I admit that the presence or absence of this
debugging information isn't a crucial factor in successful exploitation.
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