linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LSM: Make security_hook

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Mon, 22 May 2017 13:32:59 -0700
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Make security_hook_heads a local variable.

On 5/22/2017 12:50 PM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 22/05/17 18:09, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 5/22/2017 7:03 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> But even with those we can still chain
>>> them together with a list with external linkage.
>> I gave up that approach in 2012. Too many unnecessary calls to
>> null functions, and massive function vectors with a tiny number
>> of non-null entries. From a data structure standpoint, it was
>> just wrong. The list scheme is exactly right for the task at
>> hand.
> I understand this as a green light, for me to continue with the plan of
> using LSM Hooks as example for making dynamically allocated data become
> read-only, using also Tetsuo's patch (thanks, btw).

I still don't like the assumption that a structure of
N elements can be assumed to be the same as an array
of N elements. Putting on my hardening hat, however, I
like the smalloc() solution to keeping the hook lists
safe, so I am willing to swallow the objection to using
offsets to address the existing exposure.

>
> Is that correct?
>
> ---
> thanks, igor
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>