[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292886088.4061.3.camel@dan>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:01:28 -0500
From: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, tgraf@...radead.org, eugeneteo@...nel.org,
kees.cook@...onical.com, mingo@...e.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kptr_restrict for hiding kernel pointers
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 17:26 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:20:34 EST, Dan Rosenberg said:
>
> > @@ -1035,6 +1038,26 @@ char *pointer(const char *fmt, char *buf, char *end, void *ptr,
> > return buf + vsnprintf(buf, end - buf,
> > ((struct va_format *)ptr)->fmt,
> > *(((struct va_format *)ptr)->va));
> > + case 'K':
> > + /*
> > + * %pK cannot be used in IRQ context because it tests
> > + * CAP_SYSLOG.
> > + */
> > + if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq() || in_nmi())
> > + WARN_ONCE(1, "%%pK used in interrupt context.\n");
>
> Should this then continue on and test CAP_SYSLOG anyhow, or should it
> return a "" or or "<invalid>" or something?
This is a valid point. I'll resend a new version shortly that defaults
to zeroing pointers if it's used incorrectly without relying on
capability checks.
Thanks,
Dan
--
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