[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1319468868.3280.9.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:07:48 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] LSM: Do not apply mmap_min_addr check to PROT_NONE
mappings
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 11:52 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > But that's no reason for the kernel to *allow* the mapping.
>
> I don't have a problem with that.
I feel like, and it's just a very vague feeling, that the PROT bits
didn't matter to the kernel. It would still happily execute stuff on
page 0 even without PROT_EXEC at some point in the past. I'm probably
totally off base, and I could test it, but I sort of feel like I
remember something like that....
If that's the case, NULL pointer kernel bugs won't be caught if they
happen while these are mapped by your program...
--
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