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]
Date:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 16:03:34 +0000
From:   "Saidi, Ali" <>
To:     Kees Cook <>, Michal Hocko <>,
        Matthew Wilcox <>,
        Jann Horn <>
CC:     Dave Hansen <>,
        "Liguori, Anthony" <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        X86 ML <>, Will Deacon <>,
        LKML <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        "Woodhouse, David" <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        linux-arm-kernel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mmap: handle worst-case heap randomization in

´╗┐On 3/27/19, 2:52 PM, "linux-arm-kernel on behalf of Kees Cook" < on behalf of> wrote:

    Adding some more people to CC... what do people think about this
    moving of the brk to ELF_ET_DYN_BASE in this corner-case? Anything
    that worked before should still work (i.e. the ultimately-launched
    binary already had the brk very far from its text, so this should be
    no different from a COMPAT_BRK standpoint). The only risk I see here
    is that if someone started to suddenly depend on the entire memory
    space above the mmap region being available when launching binaries
    via a direct loader execs... which seems highly unlikely, I'd hope:
    this would mean a binary would not work when execed normally.

Kees' proposal addresses the issue for me. Anyone have concerns on this proposed solution?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists