Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 May 2009 15:24:15 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |