On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:21:40PM +0800, 程洋 wrote:
> Actually I'm pretty sure kernel calls proc_mount()
> Here is the call stack
OK, hidepid= is still misdesigned. :-(
Actually I'm pretty sure kernel calls proc_mount()
Here is the call stack
[0.003450] [] proc_mount+0x2c/0x98
[0.003459] [] mount_fs+0x164/0x190
[0.003465] [] vfs_kern_mount+0x74/0x168
[0.003469] [] kern_mount_data+0x18/0x30
[0.003474] [] pid_ns_prepare_proc+0x24/0x40
[
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 03:26:04PM +0800, 程洋 wrote:
> Anyone who can review my patch?
>
> 程洋 于2018年11月30日周五 上午10:34写道：
> >
> > Here is an article illustrates the details.
> > https://medium.com/@topjohnwu/from-anime-game-to-android-system-security-vulnerability-9b955a182f20
> >
> > And There is
h MS_REMOUNT flag. But kernel
> > will crash if we did this.
> >
> > Q: Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd
> > like to know your reasoning.
> > A: See the article above. It's part of Android sanbox.
> >
> >
h MS_REMOUNT flag. But kernel
> > will crash if we did this.
> >
> > Q: Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd
> > like to know your reasoning.
> > A: See the article above. It's part of Android sanbox.
> >
> >
REMOUNT flag. But kernel
> will crash if we did this.
>
> Q: Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd
> like to know your reasoning.
> A: See the article above. It's part of Android sanbox.
>
>
> > [PATCH] Security: Handle hidepid option correctly
REMOUNT flag. But kernel
> will crash if we did this.
>
> Q: Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd
> like to know your reasoning.
> A: See the article above. It's part of Android sanbox.
>
>
> > [PATCH] Security: Handle hidepid option correctly
will crash if we did this.
>
> Q: Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd
> like to know your reasoning.
> A: See the article above. It's part of Android sanbox.
>
>
> > [PATCH] Security: Handle hidepid option correctly
>
> Why is this
will crash if we did this.
>
> Q: Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd
> like to know your reasoning.
> A: See the article above. It's part of Android sanbox.
>
>
> > [PATCH] Security: Handle hidepid option correctly
>
> Why is this
ticle above. It's part of Android sanbox.
>
>
> > [PATCH] Security: Handle hidepid option correctly
>
> Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd like
> to know your reasoning.
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:08:21 +0800 mailto:d17103...@gmail.com wrot
ticle above. It's part of Android sanbox.
>
>
> > [PATCH] Security: Handle hidepid option correctly
>
> Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd like
> to know your reasoning.
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:08:21 +0800 mailto:d17103...@gmail.com wrot
now your reasoning.
A: See the article above. It's part of Android sanbox.
> [PATCH] Security: Handle hidepid option correctly
Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd like to
know your reasoning.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:08:21 +0800 mailto:d17103...@gmail.com
now your reasoning.
A: See the article above. It's part of Android sanbox.
> [PATCH] Security: Handle hidepid option correctly
Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd like to
know your reasoning.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:08:21 +0800 mailto:d17103...@gmail.com
> [PATCH] Security: Handle hidepid option correctly
Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd
like to know your reasoning.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:08:21 +0800 d17103...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Cheng Yang
>
> The proc_parse_options() call from proc_
> [PATCH] Security: Handle hidepid option correctly
Why is this considered to be security sensitive? I can guess, but I'd
like to know your reasoning.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:08:21 +0800 d17103...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Cheng Yang
>
> The proc_parse_options() call from proc_
From: Cheng Yang
The proc_parse_options() call from proc_mount() runs only once at boot
time. So on any later mount attempt, any mount options are ignored
because ->s_root is already initialized.
As a consequence, "mount -o " will ignore the options. The
only way to change mount options is
From: Cheng Yang
The proc_parse_options() call from proc_mount() runs only once at boot
time. So on any later mount attempt, any mount options are ignored
because ->s_root is already initialized.
As a consequence, "mount -o " will ignore the options. The
only way to change mount options is
17 matches
Mail list logo
