Re: PING^7 (was Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customizationof the SG_IO command whitelist (CVE-2012-4542))

[Tejun Heo]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 01:14:37PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Don't think we can.  It'd be a behavior change clearly visible to
> > userland at this point.
> 
> We can (and even for MMC) if it is a build-time configuration knob.  It
> would satisfy those people who want the CVE fixed, as long as userspace
> gets some configurability.

I don't think that's a good idea.  We can gradually try to phase it
out by triggering warning message if SG_IO commands are issued to !MMC
devices but I'm not sure that'd be worth the effort.

> > * Merge the patch to give out SG_IO access along with write access, so
> >   the use cases which want to give out SG_IO access can do so
> >   explicitly and be fully responsible for the device.  This makes
> >   sense to me.  If one wants to be allowed to issue raw commands to
> >   the hardware, one takes the full responsibility.
> 
> That's not possible; it would make it impossible to do things like using
> a privileged helper to open the file and passing it back via SCM_RIGHTS
> to an unprivileged program (running as the user).  This is the ptrace
> attack that you mentioned.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  I'm describing the same
thing you implemented and posted.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/