[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1210251757200.24078@wniryva.cad.erqung.pbz>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:27:32 +0530 (IST)
From: P J P <ppandit@...hat.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
cc: keescook@...omium.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, me@...fdog.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: do not leave bprm->interp on stack
Hello Tetsuo,
+-- On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Tetsuo Handa wrote --+
| Excuse me, but why do you change definition of printable(c) ?
| Looks like a regression.
#define printable(c) (((c)=='\t') || ((c)=='\n') || (0x20<=(c) && (c)<=0x7e))
Earlier definition of printable() as above was used to - break; - out of the
loop when (c) was either tab or new line or any printable character. Whereas,
in the patch it is used to call the request_module routine if the (c) is
printable character, and hence the change to - printable().
| Wouldn't your patch trigger call request_module() whenever a script
| starting with "#!/bin/sh" is executed?
Yes, Petr(a colleague here) already pointed out about excessive call to
request_module() routine, in case if the requested module is already loaded or
is not required/available. I'm trying to find a possible fix for the same.
Is there a way to to see if the requested module 'binfmt-xxxx' is accessible
or not? The call to - request_module - could be conditioned accordingly.
Thank you.
--
Prasad J Pandit / Red Hat Security Response Team
DB7A 84C5 D3F9 7CD1 B5EB C939 D048 7860 3655 602B
--
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