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: <20200507182257.GX11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 18:22:57 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        dyoung@...hat.com, bhe@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
        keescook@...omium.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cai@....pw,
        rdunlap@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kernel: add panic_on_taint

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:06:31PM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> index 8a176d8727a3..b80ab660d727 100644
> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> @@ -1217,6 +1217,13 @@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = {
>  		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ZERO,
>  		.extra2		= SYSCTL_ONE,
>  	},
> +	{
> +		.procname	= "panic_on_taint",
> +		.data		= &panic_on_taint,
> +		.maxlen		= sizeof(unsigned long),
> +		.mode		= 0644,
> +		.proc_handler	= proc_doulongvec_minmax,
> +	},

You sent this out before I could reply to the other thread on v1.
My thoughts on the min / max values, or lack here:
                                                                                
Valid range doesn't mean "currently allowed defined" masks.                     

For example, if you expect to panic due to a taint, but a new taint type
you want was not added on an older kernel you would be under a very
*false* sense of security that your kernel may not have hit such a
taint, but the reality of the situation was that the kernel didn't
support that taint flag only added in future kernels.                           

You may need to define a new flag (MAX_TAINT) which should be the last
value + 1, the allowed max values would be                                      

(2^MAX_TAINT)-1                                                                 

or                                                                              

(1<<MAX_TAINT)-1  

Since this is to *PANIC* I think we do want to test ranges and ensure
only valid ones are allowed.

  Luis

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ