[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101107235610.GE17592@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:56:10 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
Cc: chas3@...rs.sourceforge.net, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuznet@....inr.ac.ru" <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"pekkas@...core.fi" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
"remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com" <remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Security] [SECURITY] Fix leaking of kernel heap addresses via
/proc
> The criticism raised so far is that cutting out the pointers entirely
> results in the omission of potentially useful debugging information. I
> see two viable options to address this: either print out or omit
> addresses based on privileges (CAP_NET_ADMIN, for example), or have it
> controllable via sysctl. I'm leaning towards the sysctl
> option...thoughts?
I would just remove the pointers from /proc and supply
gdb macros that extract the equivalent information from /proc/kcore.
This is a bit racy, but for debugging it should be no
problem to run them multiple times as needed.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists