| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <53566428.9080005@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:44:24 +0200 From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> To: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com> CC: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>, Daniel Mack <zonque@...il.com>, Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>, "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] File Sealing & memfd_create() On 04/22/2014 01:55 PM, David Herrmann wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote: >> Ah. What do you recommend for recipient to recognize such descriptors? >> Would they just try to seal them and reject them if this fails? > > This highly depends on your use-case. Please see the initial email in > this thread. It describes 2 example use-cases. In both cases, the > recipients read the current set of seals and verify that a given set > of seals is set. I didn't find that very convincing. But in v2, seals are monotonic, so checking them should be reliable enough. What happens when you create a loop device on a write-sealed descriptor? -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team -- 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