[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f8e523a05927eef49a9a3566d176aa62@abdsec.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 03:39:05 -0400
From: Emrah Demir <ed@...sec.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing
List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dan Rosenberg
<dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Dave Jones
<davej@...hat.com>, keescook@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KERNEL: resource: Fix bug on leakage in /proc/iomem file
On 2016-04-14 00:27, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> So I'd find a patch like the attached to be perfectly acceptable (in
>>> fact, we should have done this long ago).
>>
>> I just committed it, let's see if some odd program uses the iomem
>> data. I doubt it, and I always enjoy improvements that remove more
>> lines of code than they add.
>
> Hrm, it looks like at least Ubuntu's kernel security test suite
> expects to find these entries (when it verifies that STRICT_DEVMEM
> hasn't regressed). Also, the commit only removed the entries on x86.
> Most (all?) of the other architectures still have them. Could you
> revert this for now, and I'll cook up a %pK-based solution for -next?
>
Actually, I have realized that this patch (Linus's patch) was for x86. I
was planning to code the same for other architectures.
It seems your method is better. %pK will zero other values in
/proc/iomem.
Perhaps Ubuntu patch might be a good option.
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.
