[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875z43rd0u.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:20:01 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jannh@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org,
jeffv@...gle.com, minchan@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com,
shakeelb@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, edgararriaga@...gle.com,
timmurray@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/madvise: replace ptrace attach requirement for
process_madvise
* Suren Baghdasaryan:
> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
> index 6a660858784b..c2d600386902 100644
> --- a/mm/madvise.c
> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> @@ -1197,12 +1197,22 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(process_madvise, int, pidfd, const struct iovec __user *, vec,
> goto release_task;
> }
>
> - mm = mm_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_FSCREDS);
> + /* Require PTRACE_MODE_READ to avoid leaking ASLR metadata. */
> + mm = mm_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_FSCREDS);
> if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mm)) {
> ret = IS_ERR(mm) ? PTR_ERR(mm) : -ESRCH;
> goto release_task;
> }
Shouldn't this depend on the requested behavior? Several operations
directly result in observable changes, and go beyond performance tuning.
Thanks,
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill
Powered by blists - more mailing lists