|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] [XSM] Potential security vulnerability and inconsistency in
Hi All,
I found that evtchn_close() is not checked for authorization by xsm hooks in
some cases.
There is no xsm permission check before evtchn_close() called in
do_event_channel_op() as shown below. I imagine, maybe there is no need to
check if one can close itself, but it is probably still good to add a xsm hook
inside evtchn_close() in case we decide to expand evtchn_close() to close other
domains later.
In addition, almost all other functions such as evtchn_send() and
evtchn_status() put their xsm hooks inside themselves, it would be more
consistent to add a xsm_evtchn_close() hook in evtchn_close(). What do you
think? Thanks.
818 long do_event_channel_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(void) arg) {
...
874 case EVTCHNOP_close: {
875 struct evtchn_close close;
876 if ( copy_from_guest(&close, arg, 1) != 0 )
877 return -EFAULT;
878 rc = evtchn_close(&close);
879 break;
...
}
Thanks,
Lin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread> |
- [Xen-devel] [XSM] Potential security vulnerability and inconsistency in evtchn_close,
Tan, Lin <=
|
|
|
|
|