Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC v1] implement SL*B and stack usercopy runtime checks

[Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>]

On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 12:37 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 23:24 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > Btw, if the perfomance will be acceptable, what do you think about
> > logging/reacting on the spotted overflows?
> 
> If you do, it might be useful to track the found location(s)

Sure.


> and only emit the overflow log entry once as found.

Hmm, if consider it as a purely debugging feature, then yes.  But if
consider it as a try to block some exploitation attempt, then no.
I'd appresiate the latter.


> Maybe use __builtin_return_address(depth) for tracking.

PaX/Grsecurity uses dump_stack() and do_group_exit(SIGKILL);  If setup,
it kills all user's processes and locks the user for some time.  I don't
really propose the latter, but some reaction (to at least slowdown a
blind bruteforce) might be useful.


Thanks,

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>