On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/18, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > @@ -1629,24 +1628,13 @@ void set_dumpable(struct mm_struct *mm, int value)
>> >
>> > do {
>> > old = ACCESS_ONCE(mm->flags);
>> > - new = old & ~MMF_DUMPABLE_MASK;
>> > -
>> > - switch (value) {
>> > - case SUID_DUMP_ROOT:
>> > - new |= (1 << MMF_DUMP_SECURELY);
>> > - case SUID_DUMP_USER:
>> > - new |= (1<< MMF_DUMPABLE);
>> > - }
>> > -
>> > + new = (old & ~MMF_DUMPABLE_MASK) | value;
>>
>> Just to make this safe against insane callers, perhaps mask the value as well?
>
> Well yes, before this patch set_dumpable() silently ignored the wrong
> value, perhaps you are right but see below.
>
>> new = (old & ~MMF_DUMPABLE_MASK) | (value & MMF_DUMPABLE_MASK);
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> this doesn't really help, with this patch "mm->flags & MMF_DUMPABLE_MASK"
> has a room for yet another SUID_DUMP == 4 we do not have yet.
>
> And I don't really like the "silently ignore" logic, so perhaps
>
> if (WARN_ON(value > SUID_DUMP_ROOT))
> return;
Ah, good point about == 4. Yeah, I like the WARN_ON. No reason not to
be defensive as long as this code is getting changed.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
