Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:11:27 +0100 | From | Djalal Harouni <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] procfs: restore 0400 permissions on /proc/*/{syscall,stack,personality} |
| |
Hi Eric,
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 05:26:56PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > I have take a moment and read this thread, and have been completely > unenlightend. People are upset but it is totally unclear why. > > There is no explanation why it is ok to ignore the suid-exec case, as > the posted patches do. Which ultimately means the patches provide Please, did you take a look at the patches ? - INF("syscall", S_IRUGO, proc_pid_syscall), + INF("syscall", S_IRUSR, proc_pid_syscall),
Can you please tell me how did you come to the conclusion that the patches "ignore the suid-exec case as the posted patches do" ?
I just did s/0444/0400/ which is pretty obvious and did not remove that ptrace check at read() added by Al.
> little to no security benefit, and that the posted patches as written > are broken. They are correct. Perhaps you didn't take a closer look
Thanks Eric
-- Djalal Harouni http://opendz.org
| |