linux-kernel - Re: GPM & Emacs broken in Linux 6.7 -- ok to relax check?

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: <2024121726-electable-tabloid-bf55@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 09:49:42 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Hanno Böck <hanno@...eck.de>
Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jared Finder <jared@...der.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
	regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jwilk@...lk.net
Subject: Re: GPM & Emacs broken in Linux 6.7 -- ok to relax check?

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 09:47:23AM +0100, Hanno Böck wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:53:27 +0100
> "Günther Noack" <gnoack@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hanno, you are the original author of this patch and you have done a
> > more detailed analysis on the TIOCLINUX problems than me -- do you
> > agree that this weakened check would still be sufficient to protect
> > against the TIOCLINUX problems?  (Or in other words, if we permitted
> > TIOCL_SELPOINTER, TIOCL_SELCLEAR and TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT for
> > non-CAP_SYS_ADMIN processes, would you still see a way to misuse that
> > functionality?)
> 
> Sorry for the late feedback.
> 
> I believe that this is correct, and permitting these functionalities
> still preserves the security fix. I also checked with Jakub Wilk, who
> was the original author of the exploit.
> The patch you posted in the meantime[1] should be fine.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/Z2BKetPygDM36X-X@google.com/T/#u

Great, can you test that and if it works for you, provide a tested-by
line?

thanks,

greg k-h