[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:56:53 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>
Subject: Re: procfs: infoleaks and DAC permissions
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 06:36:17PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> [1] http://grsecurity.net/~spender/dev_patches/distros_should_sponsor_me_for_doing_their_jobs.patch
In order to provide its security, this relies on atomic64_t actually
being 64-bit and on atomic64_inc_return() returning a 64-bit value - but
one or both of these requirements appear to be violated for some archs.
In fact, per a quick grep it appears that atomic64_inc_return() exists
for a subset of the archs only.
The patch still looks OK to apply for distros that only care about a
handful of archs, where this is fully 64-bit. Correct?
Are there any other known issues with this patch (or approach)?
A newer revision of it maybe (e.g. what's merged in grsecurity patch)?
I am just guessing.
Should there be a different revision of the patch for mainline? Perhaps
it'd have to use a spinlock at least on archs lacking 64-bit atomics.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
