| To: | Tomas Carnecky <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Coverity] Untrusted user data in kernel |
| From: | Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:30:04 +0100 |
| Cc: | linux-os@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, Bryan Fulton <bryan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <41C330F7.4000806@dbservice.com> |
| References: | <41C26DD1.7070006@trash.net> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412171108340.4216@chaos.analogic.com> <41C330F7.4000806@dbservice.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.6.2 |
> But the difference between you example (cp /dev/zero /dev/mem) and
> passing unchecked data to the kernel is... you _can_ check the data and
This is the difference:
static int open_port(struct inode * inode, struct file * filp)
{
return capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO) ? 0 : -EPERM;
}
(from mem.c)
Regards
Oliver
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Coverity] Untrusted user data in kernel, Tomas Carnecky |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Coverity] Untrusted user data in kernel, Tomas Carnecky |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Coverity] Untrusted user data in kernel, Tomas Carnecky |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Coverity] Untrusted user data in kernel, Tomas Carnecky |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |