[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 13:38:46 +0200
From: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, spender@...ecurity.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] futex: mark get_robust_list as deprecated
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:30:31PM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:19:24PM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> CRIU folks, how do you deal with futex robust lists?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I believe we were over-optimistic in claiming that we don't need this
>> >> > syscall (to be fair I think we simply yet not faced the problem Eric points).
>> >> > So we need some way to fetch this address and set it back. If get_robust_list
>> >> > get deprecated maybe we could print it out in /proc/pid/stat or something?
>> >>
>> >> Kees, you said get_robust_list() can be used to bypass ASLR.
>> >> How? What makes it worse than /proc/pid/maps?
>> >>
>> >> If the robust list address itself is bad, removing get_robust_list()
>> >> and putting the information into /proc is useless.
>> >
>> > Look, the /proc entry might check for some CAP and do not allow
>> > a regular user to fetch this address.
>>
>> We could also add another check to get_robust_list().
>> It does already ptrace_may_access().
>
> Yes, and I'm definitely not against that ;) The problem is that this
> syscall was marked as deprecated and if people want to drop it we
> need to find a way to provide this address back in a sake of c/r.
>
> If c/r is the only _one_ who needs this facility than providing the
> address via /proc might be worth thing to do (since I can wrap
> it with CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE and a regular kernel won't see
> this snippet at all).
Please see my first mail above.
c/r is not the only user. :-P
--
Thanks,
//richard
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.
