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  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:   Sun, 10 May 2020 14:34:04 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Al Viro' <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCHES] uaccess simple access_ok() removals

From: Al Viro
> Sent: 10 May 2020 00:41
> 
> 	One of the uaccess-related branches; this one is just the
> cases when access_ok() calls are trivially pointless - the address
> in question gets fed only to primitives that do access_ok() checks
> themselves.

There is also the check in rw_copy_check_uvector() that should
always be replicated by the copy_to/from_user() in _copy_to/from_iter().

And the strange call to rw_copy_check_uvector() in mm/process_vm_access.c
which carefully avoids the access_ok() check for the target process.
I did a quick look, but failed to see an obvious check further
down the call path.
The code is doing a read/write from another process, not sure when it
is used - not by gdb.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists