[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170511112234.g4qmekxmq676pas6@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:22:34 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address
limit before returning to user-mode
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 04:31:00PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > I don't like silent fixups. If we want to do this, we should BUG or
> > at least WARN, not just change the addr limit. But I'm also not
> > convinced it's indicative of an actual bug here.
>
> Nothing should enter that function with KERNEL_DS set, right?
>
> BUG_ON(get_fs() != USER_DS);
We're feeling triggerhappy, aren't we? A nice juicy WARN-splat along
with a fixup looks much better than killing the box, to me.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
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.
