Re: [PATCH][RFC] security: constify seq_operations

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting James Morris (jmorris@xxxxxxxxx):
> I think it'd be a good idea to constify more of the various operations 
> structs in the kernel -- our coverage of this is spotty.
> 
> The patch below should provide coverage for all of the eligible 
> seq_operations structs in the kernel.  It's derived from the grsecurity 
> patch (which I was reading and noticed how many of these we're missing).
> 
> It's possible something's been missed, or that there are problems in code 
> which I can't test.  Please review/comment/test.
> 
> If it looks ok, I suggest pushing this via -mm.
> 
> Note that there are quite a few other similar ops to be constified, such 
> as file_operations, so if anyone would like to pitch in, please do so.
> 
> ---
> 
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] security: constify seq_operations
> 
> Make all seq_operations structs const, to help mitigate
> against revectoring user-triggerable function pointers.
> 
> This is derived from the grsecurity patch, although generated
> from scratch because it's simpler than extracting the changes
> from there.
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>

I think it's a good idea.

I suppose we could add a script to check for any new
seq_ops structs not constified...  something as simple as
find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep 'struct seq_operations' | grep -v const
Though what you have here hits all of those and more.

Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx>

thanks,
-serge
--
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/