[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikkeQNzTMs_AifJFFU3oEKAmMBaCO9PCRWLRTSo@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:10:05 +0800
From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hagen@...u.net,
wirelesser@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] filter: add a security check at install time
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le jeudi 02 décembre 2010 à 17:10 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
>>
>> Oops. We were wrong. The RAM of BPF machine is initialized to 0. So
>> loading from a cell, in which no value is stored before, is valid. So
>> we can't prevent the following instructions.
>>
>
> It was not 'initialized to 0', thats the point of previous patches.
>
I checked the implementation of bpf in FreeBSD, and found RAM isn't
initialized to 0. Then it could not be a common 'feature', and no
application relies on it. Maybe we can drop this 'feature' added by
accident, and break the 'ABI'.
Now, I agree with you totally. Thank for your explaining..
Acked-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
>
> (By the way, I believe FreeBSD has the security problem Dan reported to us)
Yes. it doesn't do this check.
--
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...il.com)
--
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