linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exec: do not leave bprm->interp on stack

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce 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:	Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:17:09 +0530 (IST)
From:	P J P <ppandit@...hat.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
cc:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, halfdog <me@...fdog.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: do not leave bprm->interp on stack

+-- On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Al Viro wrote --+
| > not. Module alias could dodge this though, I guess.
| "Could"?  Can you show a single module that would have name matching
| binfmt-[0-9a-f]*?  In other words, are they ever loaded _not_ via an
| alias?

  I understand. I was wondering if alias information is accessible in the 
kernel via any routine, alike find_module().

Just to get perspective about how many times request_module() would be called 
with the latest patch, in general installations(or distributions), how 
prevalent(in use) are binfmt-xxxx loadable modules?

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/