From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 6mVQAYhJSWVP9D8AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 06 Nov 2023 15:16:08 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1699301767; bh=x1ASFWv7eFkg1/dg+UA+35qXEMSPYVLRgtGU/f4vmqY=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=rG2WzEhfLeWr25d5k8d3tCcLercW24BLhX3EFANAOCdQdx4QZZky67QA6GdJ7F3n2 kHL57Fxv9nC2b5FAWtNtN6D4U2DrgFEj6MJ/VmNMOjFdMgoHFObTeMNEuZ8mpxFahR YvTcEyW/1ecO3v2Nv/e8FGrDObMqHHBpNdnvx8vU= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id EA9011E0BB; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 15:16:07 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=Vfnirb1z; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D29D81E00F for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 15:16:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38CDE38582AC for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 20:16:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FBFB3858C20 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 20:15:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 0FBFB3858C20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 0FBFB3858C20 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1699301755; cv=none; b=gdGoifdz5wuJrhPVNRVexJ397RwsnZIkWgQpnRcmsWXwhQ67Ej3Jn7rHQN5GGvA4WYl5I3Zcwxz/1tZ30bntpMiHTWR8K+eFqsS0qudwPV49Qt2EHPNq6lTZ6uroQvlTxeaFHUzmqGyxv4qC5Xz+uLM7bC/a6MEv21WeTVPJoR8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1699301755; c=relaxed/simple; bh=x1ASFWv7eFkg1/dg+UA+35qXEMSPYVLRgtGU/f4vmqY=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=n7CkfQpEhESJHsE3voK1aPXCkFhVDurRv4GVVwLytT5osYtlr5afVlPs74hAU618GnuzmpKKuX00E7KTSB3TflOTpH5QuTOs1axXIwSe2JsyiZMmADdumYDOgwc1zqOi2OC5SK+iw3kHmAH0oMG3L+CEfhOTixD+hyqpuEiL8vM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1699301753; bh=x1ASFWv7eFkg1/dg+UA+35qXEMSPYVLRgtGU/f4vmqY=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=Vfnirb1zL7wwNgE5jluLSvEnw1PtoHHzDMnIOuh3RNNlDAIbJbmVP7KI58deR98cB OHVPuWh5vYRuYuQbt9kVxZiJiRgXuo49115/7n6rwVWJTANwkdVGjAFpGY748vQrq6 n8eIk0r5BZ3cXE/C3271kfeWPbX0hWEN0q9Oudiw= Received: from [172.16.0.192] (192-222-143-198.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.143.198]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5475E1E00F; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 15:15:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3b87dddb-9781-46fd-91f3-72cad98f0510@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 15:15:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC] Adding a SECURITY policy for GDB Content-Language: fr To: Siddhesh Poyarekar , Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <877cmvui64.fsf@redhat.com> <201ad6f3-0e7d-4474-88bf-ba60568c8f2e@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <201ad6f3-0e7d-4474-88bf-ba60568c8f2e@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org On 11/6/23 15:09, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 2023-11-06 14:34, Simon Marchi wrote: >> On 11/6/23 08:26, Andrew Burgess wrote: >>> In the context of local debugging, any bugs in GDB that result in >>> crossing of a privilege boundary are considered security bugs. Some >>> examples of crossing a privilege boundary include; being able to >>> execute code as an arbitrarily different user, or accessing resources >>> (e.g. files, sockets, etc) for which the original user would not >>> normally have access. >> >> Do you have examples of this? It seems like any bug in that category would >> be bugs in the platform / OS, not GDB. If such a bug is possible to exploit >> with GDB, the user could another program to exploit the same bu > > That's basically boilerplate to state that *if* such a thing ever happens, it will be considered a security issue. I don't think there are any such opportunities for misuse in gdb at the moment, but never say never :) Ok... it seems strange because it looks like it invites people to report as GDB bugs what are bugs in other components (e.g. the kernel). An option would be to say that exploiting GDB to cross a privilege boundary is considered a bug of the platform, and not a GDB bug. That would be even less work for us, and technically accurate, AFAIK. Simon