linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] ipc: IPCMNI limit check for *mni & increase that limit

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]

Message-Id: <20180906152451.e8c6ff58a867646ff5209cfc@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:24:51 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
        manfred@...orfullife.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] ipc: IPCMNI limit check for *mni & increase that
 limit

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:50:08 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:

> >Enforcing the range limit check may cause some existing applications to break
> >if they unwittingly set a value higher than 32k. To allow system administrators
> >to work around this issue, a new ipcmni_compat sysctl parameter can now be set
> >to restore the old behavior. This compatibility mode can only be set if the
> >ipcmni_extend boot parameter is not specified. Patch 5 implements this new
> >sysctl parameter.
> >
> >Waiman Long (5):
> >  ipc: IPCMNI limit check for msgmni and shmmni
> >  ipc: IPCMNI limit check for semmni
> 
> I've reviewed the first two which look good and are actual immediate fixes
> to the bogus user input. I haven't gotten around yet the rest of the patches
> but are at least a bit more controversial than the first two. As such, could
> patch 1 and 2 be picked up once the merge window closes, for v4.20? Although
> -stable might want in, this situation is quite historic, so it's not that
> urgent.

Thanks.  Could we please have a refresh and resend?  Hopefully Luis
will have time for another pass.