![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > I looked at this a couple on months back (and posted something to > security audit about some concerns I had). > > Basically... if you pass bogus addresses and pointers to the kernel, > depending on what OS and version you are running, you might get an > EFAULT and you might not. no, it's a quality of implementation issue. Also it's a usability issue, bugs detected should be reported back to user-space. It's _not_ a valid excuse that if it's not defined explicitly in POSIX or that other OSs are less careful. Also, it can be used by user-space too, if a memory-management software (such as a C++ wrapped garbage collector or whatever) maps/unmaps certain areas of memory, the pointer could be invalid because say that page is marked read-only, but user-space has the right to detect this. Thus such 'temporarily invalid pointers' detected by the kernel as 'invalid pointer' can be turned into a 'valid pointer' by user-space wrapping functions. (i dont think there is any such package for Linux right now) -- mingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||