[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/9] exec: add a global execve counter
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> I wonder if the number part of exec_id would even have to be 64-bit. I
> think I can do about 10000 execves per second if I make the program a
> small static one - and that's on a fast CPU. And it's a per-thread
> counter, so you can't scale it with lots of CPU's. So it would take
> something like four days to wrap. Hmm..

Actually, using a pure counter is horrible, because even if it takes
four days to wrap, it *will* wrap, and the attacker can just count his
own execve's.

If, instead, you were to use a counter that counts *independently* of
execve's, you're much better off.

And if you use one that is free - because the CPU implements it
natively - you're even better off.

IOW, why is the exec-id just the time stamp counter (on any random cpu
- we really don't care)? That should be safe even in just 32 bits
exactly because it's not under the control of the user.

And it's zero cost for us to update.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-11 02:01    [W:0.070 / U:8.536 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site