[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVLyg3CJHoFORnmJ+_0WirKck=unBQ8Zu2JUd+WhF6C5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 12:58:59 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Scott Bauer <sbauer@....utah.edu>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
wmealing@...hat.com, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Abhiram Balasubramanian <abhiram@...utah.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] SROP Mitigation: Architecture independent code for
signal cookies
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Scott Bauer <sbauer@....utah.edu> wrote:
> This patch adds a per-process secret to the task struct which
> will be used during signal delivery and during a sigreturn.
> Also, logic is added in signal.c to generate, place, extract,
> clear and verify the signal cookie.
>
Potentially silly question: it's been a while since I read the SROP
paper, but would the technique be effectively mitigated if sigreturn
were to zero out the whole signal frame before returning to user mode?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
