[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120111135847.d28425c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:58:47 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Xiaotian Feng <xtfeng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Xiaotian Feng <dannyfeng@...cent.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: fix null pointer deref in proc_pid_permission()
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:43:30 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 01:47:05PM -0500, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
> > get_proc_task() can fail to search the task and return NULL, put_task_struct()
> > will then bomb the kernel with following oops:
> >
> > [ 1870.574045] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000010
> > [ 1870.574065] IP: [<ffffffff81217d34>] proc_pid_permission+0x64/0xe0
> > [ 1870.574088] PGD 112075067 PUD 112814067 PMD 0
> > [ 1870.574106] Oops: 0002 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> >
> > This is a regression introduced by commit 0499680a, kernel should
> > return -ESRCH if get_proc_task() failed.
>
> Nice catch!
>
> However since this error is returned to userspace, shouldn't this be
> -ENOENT instead?
>
Failed get_proc_task() frequently results in -ESRCH. And less
frequently results in -ENOENT.
It seems odd that inode_operations.permission() would ever return
anything other than zero or -EPERM.
--
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