Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 13:09:59 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/20] randstruct: Whitelist struct security_hook_heads cast On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> The LSM initialization routines walk security_hook_heads as an array >> of struct list_head instead of via names to avoid a ton of needless >> source. Whitelist this to avoid the false positive warning from the >> plugin: > > I think this crap just needs to be fixed properly. If not it almost > defeats the protections as the "security" ops are just about everywhere. There's nothing unsafe about 3dfc9b02864b19f4dab376f14479ee4ad1de6c9e, it just avoids tons of needless code. Tetsuo has some other ideas for cleaning it up further, but I don't like it because it removes compile-time verification of function types. There have been a lot of trade-offs in getting this working correctly, so I don't have any problem with how it looks currently. It's just a collision of assumptions between randstruct (omg, you're accessing a randomized struct with a different struct!) and the security head list (all entries are lists, and we're just initializing them). -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
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.