[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130829091127.GA2635@dztty>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:11:27 +0100
From: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] procfs: restore 0400 permissions on
/proc/*/{syscall,stack,personality}
Hi Eric,
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 05:26:56PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> I have take a moment and read this thread, and have been completely
> unenlightend. People are upset but it is totally unclear why.
>
> There is no explanation why it is ok to ignore the suid-exec case, as
> the posted patches do. Which ultimately means the patches provide
Please, did you take a look at the patches ?
- INF("syscall", S_IRUGO, proc_pid_syscall),
+ INF("syscall", S_IRUSR, proc_pid_syscall),
Can you please tell me how did you come to the conclusion that the
patches "ignore the suid-exec case as the posted patches do" ?
I just did s/0444/0400/ which is pretty obvious and did not remove
that ptrace check at read() added by Al.
> little to no security benefit, and that the posted patches as written
> are broken.
They are correct. Perhaps you didn't take a closer look
Thanks Eric
--
Djalal Harouni
http://opendz.org
--
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