Re: [PATCH v10 0/5] Introduce mseal

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 14 May 2024 at 20:13, Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be more effective to have a non-resettable prctl() allowing
> the application to prefer to be killed upon such an munmap() failure in
> order to stay consistent and more robust against such class of attacks?

This whole argument is based on a castle of sand, and some notion that
this is a problem in the first place.

Guys, if you let untrusted code execute random system calls, the whole
"look, now unmap() acts oddly" IS THE LEAST OF YOUR ISSUES.

This whole "problem" is made-up. It's not real. Theo is literally
upset about something that Linux has done forever, and that has never
been an issue.

Stop inventing make-believe problems - there are enough *real* bugs
people can look at that you really don't need to.

                 Linus




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux