linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] kexec_file: Add buffer hand-over for the next kernel

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8760q7lswz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:   Wed, 07 Sep 2016 08:51:24 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Stewart Smith <stewart@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Eric Richter <erichte@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] kexec_file: Add buffer hand-over for the next kernel

Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
> The purpose of this new version of the series is to fix a small issue that
> I found, which is that the kernel doesn't remove the memory reservation
> for the hand-over buffer it received from the previous kernel in the
> device tree it sets up for the next kernel. The result is that for each
> successive kexec, a stale hand-over buffer is left behind, wasting memory.
>
> This is fixed by changes to kexec_free_handover_buffer and
> setup_handover_buffer in patch 2. The other change is to fix checkpatch
> warnings in the last patch.

This is fundamentally broken.  You do not increase the integrity of a
system by dropping integrity checks.

No. No. No. No.

Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>

Eric