From: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
To: Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net>,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] kernel/panic: place an upper limit on number of oopses
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:33:56 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h9ii5nd7.fsf@gamma.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160113002043.GA17146@openwall.com>
Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com> writes:
> Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net> wrote:
>> To prevent an attacker from turning a mostly harmless oops into an
>> exploitable issue using a refcounter wraparound caused by repeated
>> oopsing, limit the number of oopses.
>
> This may also reduce the likelihood of successful exploitation of some
> other vulnerabilities involving memory corruption, where an unsuccessful
> attempt may inadvertently trigger an Oops. The attacker would then need
> to succeed in fewer than the maximum allowed number of Oops'es. Jann's
> currently proposed default of 0x100000 is too high to make a difference
> in that respect, but people may set it differently.
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:34:39AM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote:
>> I'm torn between making the limit configurable and not adding to the
>> massive proliferation of config options.
>
> What about reusing panic_on_oops for the configurable limit? The
> currently supported values of 0 and 1 would retain their meaning,
> 2 would panic after 2nd Oops, and so on.
I thought about this, then I looked at where panic_on_oops was used and
I thought it would be a pretty invasive change. I'm also nervous about
changing the semantics of panic_on_oops under people...
>
> There's overlap with grsecurity's banning of users on Oops, but I think
> it makes sense to have both the trivial change proposed by Jann (perhaps
> with the reuse of panic_on_oops for configuration) and grsecurity-style
> banning (maybe with a low configurable limit, rather than always on
> first Oops).
>
> Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-13 0:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-12 19:25 [RFC] kernel/panic: place an upper limit on number of oopses Jann Horn
2016-01-12 23:34 ` Daniel Axtens
2016-01-12 23:51 ` Jann Horn
2016-01-13 0:20 ` Solar Designer
2016-01-13 0:33 ` Daniel Axtens [this message]
2016-01-13 18:08 ` Jann Horn
2016-01-17 3:58 ` [kernel-hardening] " Jann Horn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87h9ii5nd7.fsf@gamma.ozlabs.ibm.com \
--to=dja@axtens.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=jann@thejh.net \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=solar@openwall.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox