linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/binfmt_elf.c: disallow zero entry point address

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]

Date:   Sun, 12 Dec 2021 11:35:56 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/binfmt_elf.c: disallow zero entry point address

[ Crossed emails ]

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:30 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Linux, the start of the first PT_LOAD segment is the ELF
> header and the address 0 points to the ELF magic bytes which
> isn't a valid code sequence.

Yeah, then I think a much more valid argument (and patch) is _that_ argument.

So that kind of explanation, along with a patch more along the line of that

        if (elf_ex->e_entry < header_sizes)
                goto out;

I suggested, and not talking about paper standards that may or may not
be relevant.

That would be much more palatable to me - it's a _technical_ argument,
not a "some paper standard that we clearly have never followed"
argument.

                Linus