[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzNvwEmkS-i1MWRym=bqH8qTE=S=oDdaM-Y0ci3M_5rSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 16:55:16 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Helge Diller <deller@....de>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
"security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
Qualys Security Advisory <qsa@...lys.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ximin Luo <infinity0@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: larger stack guard gap, between vmas
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> As part of that should we put restrictions on the environment of
> set*id exec too?
I'm not seeing what sane limits you could use.
I think the concept of "reset as much of the environment to sane
things when running suid binaries" is a good concepr.
But we simply don't have any sane values to reset things to.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists