[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUG9yHf4D_fDEj054Bgo4zXpmK5UzME9mKNqD70U7vy5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:52:15 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, linux-x86_64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Detecting the availability of VSYSCALL
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:45 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski:
>
> > Can’t an ELF note be done with some more or less ordinary asm such
> > that any link editor will insert it correctly?
>
> We've just been over this for the CET enablement. ELF PT_NOTE parsing
> was rejected there.
No one told me this. Unless I missed something, the latest kernel
patches still had PT_NOTE parsing. Can you point me at an
enlightening thread or explain what happened?
> > The problem with a personality flag is that it needs to have some kind
> > of sensible behavior for setuid programs, and getting that right in a
> > way that doesn’t scream “exploit me” while preserving useful
> > compatibility may be tricky.
>
> Are restrictive personality flags still a problem with user namespaces?
> I think it would be fine to restrict this one to CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
We could possibly get away with this, but now we're introducing a
whole new mechanism. I'd rather just add proper per-namespace
sysctls, but this is a pretty big hammer.
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.
