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:	Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:10:50 -0800
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	P J P <ppandit@...hat.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 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 Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:10 AM, P J P <ppandit@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>   Hello Kees, Al,
>
> +-- On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Kees Cook wrote --+
> | If we change binfmt_script to not make a recursive call, then we still
> | need to keep the interp change somewhere off the stack. I still think
> | my patchset is the least bad.
> |
> | Al, do you have something else in mind?
>
>   Guys, are there any updates further?
>
>   Al, what's your take on the *rare* extra call to request_module?

Without any other feedback, I'd like to use my minimal allocation
patch, since it fixes the problem and doesn't change any of the
semantics of how/when loading happens.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/