[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:51:59 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Kees Cook <kees@...ntu.com>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm: restrict access to /proc/slabinfo
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> wrote:
>> Yes, but there's no way for users to know where the allocations came from
>> if you mix them up with other kmalloc-128 call-sites. That way the number
>> of private files will stay private to the user, no? Doesn't that give you even
>> better protection against the infoleak?
>
> No, what it gives us is an obscurity, not a protection. I'm sure it
> highly depends on the specific situation whether an attacker is able to
> identify whether the call is from e.g. ecryptfs or from VFS. Also the
> correlation between the number in slabinfo and the real private actions
> still exists.
How is the attacker able to identify that we kmalloc()'d from ecryptfs or
VFS based on non-root /proc/slabinfo when the slab allocator itself does
not have that sort of information if you mix up the allocations? Isn't this
much stronger protection especially if you combine that with /proc/slabinfo
restriction?
Pekka
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.
