On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Kees Cook writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a
Kees Cook writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
>>> sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space
>>> location to children. This allows for
On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
> >> sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space
> >> location to children.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
>> sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space
>> location to children. This allows for a potential bypass of the
On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
> sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space
> location to children. This allows for a potential bypass of the parent's
> ASLR by examining the sa_restorer value returned
When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space
location to children. This allows for a potential bypass of the parent's
ASLR by examining the sa_restorer value returned when calling sigaction().
$ cat
When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space
location to children. This allows for a potential bypass of the parent's
ASLR by examining the sa_restorer value returned when calling sigaction().
$ cat
On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space
location to children. This allows for a potential bypass of the parent's
ASLR by examining the sa_restorer value returned when
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space
location to children. This allows for a potential bypass
On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space
location to children.
Kees Cook keesc...@chromium.org writes:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space
location to
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Eric W. Biederman
ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
Kees Cook keesc...@chromium.org writes:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote:
When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of
12 matches
Mail list logo
