[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWtBCFXzwCAh8fpeFv-EvPxYW20oRmFk1iCYwUvpft=Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:03:23 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] all arches, signal: Move restart_block to struct task_struct
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> If an attacker can cause a controlled kernel stack overflow,
>> overwriting the restart block is a very juicy exploit target.
>> Moving the restart block to struct task_struct prevents this
>> exploit.
>>
>> Note that there are other fields in thread_info that are also easy
>> targets, at least on some architectures.
>>
>> It's also a decent simplification, since the restart code is more or
>> less identical on all architectures.
>
> I think that's the most important change. Moving common stuff into
> common code. The side effect of slightly reducing the attack surface
> is nice, but as Al pointed out not really the big win here.
Having gotten exactly zero feedback from any arch maintainer outside
of x86, am I supposed to pester people further?
--Andy
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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