[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:59:47 +0200
From: "PaX Team" <pageexec@...email.hu>
To: Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
CC: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Ubuntu security discussion <ubuntu-hardened@...ts.ubuntu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, spender@...ecurity.net
Subject: Re: Re: Add overflow protection to kref
On 24 Feb 2012 at 23:13, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > But in this case, the principle does not apply because we can recover.
> > The reason we cannot recover from the stack protector case is because
> > the stack protector is reacting after the fact, which is not the case
> > here. Simply peg the reference count at the maximum value, neither
> > incrementing it nor decrementing it further.
>
> ...and simply loose one reference, which leads to use-after-free.
saturating the refcount keeps the protected object allocated, so it is
a memory leak, but it is not a use-after-free.
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.
