-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 459
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add kernelCTF CVE-2023-6560_mitigation #153
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
933028d
to
c111d81
Compare
76d6b57
to
bf0d68f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey,
This is just a quick code quality review. We're planning to review the submissions more deeply (actually understanding what the exploit does) in two weeks.
In general, the code quality looks good, I've left one comment.
We also have a draft style guide now. Please take a look and let us know if it's helpful for understanding our code quality expectations: https://google.github.io/security-research/kernelctf/style_guide.
Thanks for the submission and PR!
sqe = (struct io_uring_sqe *)(sqes + sqes_offset); | ||
memset(sqe, 0, sizeof(*sqe)); | ||
sqe->opcode = IORING_OP_NOP; | ||
sqe->user_data = 0x9c000 | 0x8000000000000067; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you comment here, what these values (0x9c000
and 0x67
) mean?
More info here: https://google.github.io/security-research/kernelctf/style_guide#example-non-trivial-constant-values
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Comments added! Thanks for your feedback.
No description provided.