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  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]
Date:	Sun, 3 Jul 2011 23:53:06 +0400
From:	Vasiliy Kulikov <>
To:	Joe Perches <>
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,,
	Arnd Bergmann <>,
	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Pekka Enberg <>,
	Matt Mackall <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,,,
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC v1] implement SL*B and stack
 usercopy runtime checks

On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 12:37 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 23:24 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > Btw, if the perfomance will be acceptable, what do you think about
> > logging/reacting on the spotted overflows?
> If you do, it might be useful to track the found location(s)


> and only emit the overflow log entry once as found.

Hmm, if consider it as a purely debugging feature, then yes.  But if
consider it as a try to block some exploitation attempt, then no.
I'd appresiate the latter.

> Maybe use __builtin_return_address(depth) for tracking.

PaX/Grsecurity uses dump_stack() and do_group_exit(SIGKILL);  If setup,
it kills all user's processes and locks the user for some time.  I don't
really propose the latter, but some reaction (to at least slowdown a
blind bruteforce) might be useful.


Vasiliy Kulikov - bringing security into open computing environments
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists