[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5080C100.2090703@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:54:56 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: mtk.manpages@...il.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: add syscall to load module from fd
On 10/18/2012 07:23 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
>> Given that, I have to say I now seriously question the value of
>> finit_module(). The kernel can trivially discover if the pointed-to
>> memory area is a MAP_SHARED mmap() of a file descriptor and if so which
>> file descriptor... why can't we handle this behind the scenes?
>
> It is a bit more indirect, but also in practice it's a bit trickier than
> that. We need to ensure the memory doesn't change underneath us and
> stays attached to that fd. I can easily see that code slipping and
> ending in an exploit.
>
> But that may be my irrational fear of the mm :)
You have to do the same thing with a file/file descriptor, I would think.
However, I keep wondering about the use case for this, as opposed to
signatures.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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