[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160620161409.GA29851@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:14:10 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro@...ves.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in
ptrace
On 06/20, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > How about the simple change below for now? IIRC 32-bit task can't use
> > "syscall" so if syscall_get_nr() >= 0 then even the wrong TS_COMPAT is
> > not that bad, even if it "leaks" to user-mode.
>
> Hmm. That should fix the minor security issue, but it will even
> further break cross-arch tracing: now a 32-bit tracer tracing a 64-bit
> task that does int $0x80 will malfunction even more than it would
> have.
This is broken in any case. I mean, a 32-bit debugger can't really
debug a 64-bit task.
I don't think this change makes the things really worse.
> Also, it relies on bizarre arch details IMO.
Heh, it looks as if your patch do not ;)
> I think I prefer my version, coming momentarily.
I disagree... I don't really understand why do we need the additional
complications for the minimal fix which doesn't look very nice anyway.
But I won't argue, and your patch looks correct to me.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists