Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:13:53 +0200 From: gerarra@tin.it To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel buffer overflow Message-ID: <4146316C00007819@ims3a.cp.tin.it> In-Reply-To: <414A26F3.8030201@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>This is standard proceedure. > >"there is no security problem." >There is not even a practical problem.. > >No-one is going to be able to break into your machine because of this >unless they >have already broken into your machine by some other method. > We all agree with it, i worte 3 e-mails ago. >There is an implicit understanding in the kernel that it trusts itrself >to be done right.. >If you wan to check this I can show you many more things we trust >ourselves on in the kernel > >for example do you check the function pointers in vfs method arrays >before calling them? This is not the same situation... why an user might change vfs method poi= nters? Instead if I want to code a syscall accepting 9 arguments I can't do it..= . and it could be happen! I repeat, a check might be there... >If we checked everything we would never get anything done.. In the end >we draw the line at >"we check values that come from userspace." We trust values that come >from root indirectly >e.g. when root mounts a filesystem or a kld module. Ok, but a syscall of 9 arguments it's not so strange and nobody knows is impossible to realize. > >As you have raise dth issue we might add a KASSERT checking that it is > >within bounds but >the check would not be turned on for normal kernels just debug kernels.= > I'm very sorry for this decision. However i will write my patch (would be= enough simple) and put it in the web to let other download, but, sincerel= y, I hoped to cooperate with FreeBSD core team. greetings, rookie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4146316C00007819>