Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:20:22 -0700 | From | Kees Cook <> | Subject | Re: useless kernel.maps_protect and more |
| |
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:11:35AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > commit 5096add84b9e96e2e0a9c72675c442fe5433388a > "proc: maps protection" > > commit 831830b5a2b5d413407adf380ef62fe17d6fcbf2 > "restrict reading from /proc/<pid>/maps to those who share ->mm or can ptrace pid" > > After Al added mm_for_maps(), maps_protect stopped controlling anything, > because they're run at ->show time, but mm_for_maps() checks are done at > ->start time. > > Unless anyone objects, I'll remove maps_protect.
As long as this provides the same protections as maps_protect, I'm fine with it. I am a bit confused, though, since the reason I had to create the sysctl entry in the first place was because akpm objected to the maps file disappearing without a tunable. Has this objection gone away?
> Also, logic behind second commit applies to /proc/*/pagemap , don't you > think?
If that file shows memory location, yes. What about the numa maps that the first commit protects?
Thanks,
-Kees
-- Kees Cook @outflux.net
| |