Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 12:20:03 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE-2014-4699: Linux ptrace bug

On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 04:06:12AM -0400, John Johansen wrote:
> On 07/05/2014 08:37 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> > On 14-07-05 05:22 PM, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> >> On sam., 2014-07-05 at 22:25 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> >>> "ptrace,x86: force IRET path after a ptrace_stop()"
> >>> http://kernel.opensuse.org/cgit/kernel/commit/?h=openSUSE-13.1&id=d1f26676dad578a65c94782f0c2bd00b7aa68f1b
> >>>
> >>> "CVE-2014-4699 Kernel: x86_64,ptrace: Enforce RIP <= TASK_SIZE_MAX"
> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115927
> >>
> >> Hmhm, what are the reasons why the mainline (and opensuse) fix
> >> (b9cd18de4db3c9ffa7e17b0dc0ca99ed5aa4d43a) is to force using IRET
> >> instead of SYSRET, while distros like Ubuntu and Redhat seem to ???only???
> >> make sure RIP is canonical?
> > 
> > AFAIK, our plan is to switch to the upstream fix for the next kernel updates.
> 
> yep, Ubuntu went with the original patch, as we where mostly through our process
> when b9cd18de4db3c9ffa7e17b0dc0ca99ed5aa4d43a hit. We decided to do a release with
> the original patch so we could get something out this weekend, but will switch to
> b9cd18de4db3c9ffa7e17b0dc0ca99ed5aa4d43a asap

Why don't you keep both patches?  It sounds safer to me to use both.

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ