lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Security] [PATCH] proc: avoid information leaks to non-privileged processes


    On Mon, 4 May 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

    > Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> writes:
    >
    > > On Mon, 4 May 2009 12:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
    > > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Jake Edge wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > This is essentially v2 of "[PATCH] proc: avoid leaking eip, esp, or
    > >> > wchan to non-privileged processes", adding some of Eric Biederman's
    > >> > suggestions as well as the start_stack change (only give out that
    > >> > address if the process is ptrace()-able). This has been tested
    > >> > with ps and top without any ill effects being seen.
    > >>
    > >> Looks sane to me. Anybody objects?
    > >>
    > >
    > > Acked-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
    >
    > Looks sane here.
    >
    > Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>

    Ok, applied.

    Also, does anybody have any commentary or opinion on the patch by Matt
    Mackall to use stronger random numbers than "get_random_int()". I wonder
    what the performance impact of that is - "get_random_int()" is very cheap
    by design, and many users may consider calling "get_random_bytes()" to be
    overkill and a potential performance issue.

    Quite frankly, the way "get_random_bytes()" works now (it does a _full_
    sha thing every time), I think it's insane overkill. But I do have to
    admit that our current "get_random_int()" is insane _underkill_.

    I'd like to improve the latter without going to quie the extreme that
    matt's patch did.

    Linus


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-05 00:37    [W:0.074 / U:30.276 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site