[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1211230134410.7814@wniryva.cad.erqung.pbz>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:36:18 +0530 (IST)
From: P J P <ppandit@...hat.com>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: do not leave bprm->interp on stack
+-- On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Kees Cook wrote --+
| I think to avoid the explosion of request_module calls in the abusive
| case, we could simply return ELOOP instead of ENOEXEC on max
| recursion.
-> http://www.spinics.net/lists/mm-commits/msg92433.html
1. returning -ELOOP has a side effect of not reaching to request_module()
ever, for:
==
#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
1415 if (retval != -ENOEXEC || bprm->mm == NULL) {
1416 break;
1417 } else {
...
==
2. above patch does not seem to fix the 2^6(64) recursions issue, for:
==
+ bprm->recursion_depth = depth + 1;
retval = fn(bprm);
bprm->recursion_depth = depth;
==
setting - recursion_dept = depth - again and the outer for(try=0;try<2...)
loop seems to be causing the 2^6 recursions.
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