Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Patch 5 of 8] Add the __stack_chk_fail() function | From | Nix <> | Date | Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:57:55 +0000 |
| |
On 17 Mar 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > GCC emits a call to a __stack_chk_fail() function when the cookie is not > matching the expected value. Since this is a bad security issue; lets panic > the kernel
This turns even minor buffer overflows into complete denials of service. If we're running in process context and the process is currently killable it might make more sense to printk() a message and zap the process; that way we only halt whatever service it is the attacker hit us through.
(I agree that this is much-needed: I'm doing the rough equivalent in UML right now, where it's a good bit simpler, but having it for the real kernel on bare metal will be great!)
-- `Come now, you should know that whenever you plan the duration of your unplanned downtime, you should add in padding for random management freakouts.' - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |