[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall
(1/18/12 6:57 AM), Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 04:23:24AM -0500, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> (1/18/12 4:19 AM), Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>>> I think Eric only said gt/lt compare is useful. We don't need to expose bare
>>>> pointer order. example, kcmp(rotate(ptr, per-task-random-value)) is enough
>>>> hide the critical information. I think.
>>> The per-task might break thinks up in case
>>> (tsk1->file != tsk2->file)&& (rotate(tsk1->file, tsk1->random) == rotate(tsk2->file, tsk2->rotate))
>> I meant,
>> (tsk1->file != tsk2->file)&& (rotate(tsk1->file, caller_task->random) == rotate(tsk2->file, caller_task->random))
>>> but I agree, that the overall idea of comparing not bare pointers, but those poisoned with
>>> some global value can address the Peter's concerns about rootkits.
> Guys, can we stick with something simplier? I could use hashes here (again?!) or
> even aes encoded pointers extended to 128 bits as it was proposed too. But
> maybe we can live with something more simplier?

The problem of hashes is,

- SHA1 didn't provide correct "equal or not" policy. (and I don't think sha1 is faster than kcmp)
- Poisoned pointer can be used to restore original bare pointer.

Do this have the same issue?

> We could export EQ/NE for regular users (which might be usefull for less
> frequently used objects such as namespaces I guess). And GT/LT for root
> only.
> Does it look better? Does the change log tells enough?

I dislike. Just EQ/NE is better than "root only" behavior change. it's misleading.
If you dislike GT/LT, please just delete it.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-18 17:49    [W:0.135 / U:8.648 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site