lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] prctl: fix validation of an address
From
Date
On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 19:13 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 09:27:14AM -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 14:14 +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 05:03:07PM -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 15:00 +0400, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > > > > The address should be bigger than dac_mmap_min_addr, because
> > > > > a process with CAP_RAWIO can map a vma bellow mmap_min_addr.
> > > >
> > > > NAK
> > >
> > > Currently prctl(PR_SET_MM_*, addr, ) returns EINVAL for valid addresses.
> > > I think it's a bug. Are you agree?
> >
> > Can you help me understand how prctl(PR_SET_MM_*, relates to
> > checkpoint/restore? My worry here is that somehow this interface could
>
> Here how we use it (from userspace code)
>
> ret |= sys_prctl_safe(PR_SET_MM, PR_SET_MM_START_CODE, (long)args->mm.mm_start_code, 0);
> ret |= sys_prctl_safe(PR_SET_MM, PR_SET_MM_END_CODE, (long)args->mm.mm_end_code, 0);
> ...
>
> the values of mm.mm_start_code and such are saved in image file and obtained
> during checkpoint stage. Note the prctl_set_mm requires the caller to have
> CAP_SYS_RESOURCE privilege granted.

Is there anything which prevents an unpriv application from changing
mm.mm_start_code and mm.mm_end_code in the image, thus taking advantage
of the privileged restore code to bypass the mmap_min_addr
restrictions?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-31 17:01    [W:1.254 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site