linux-kernel - Re: Turn CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM in sysctl dev.mem.restricted

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:56:09 +0100
From:	Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, crash-utility@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Turn CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM in sysctl dev.mem.restricted

* Arjan van de Ven [2008-11-16 07:39]:
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:47:45 +0100
> Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > While the original submission of CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM mentions that
> > the option has been in RHEL and Fedora for 4 years without problems,
> > that's only a half of the story. The truth is that at least RHEL
> > has /dev/crash exactly to circumvent that /dev/mem restriction. Don't
> > tell me that this is better than having that sysctl entry. ;-)
> 
> I assume /dev/crash is read only

I don't know. But if that matters, why can't we make /dev/mem
write-only for certain areas and read-only for the rest ...?

> You either want this at compile time or you don't want it at all.

Why? You don't write something about my arguments (as Alan does, even
though I disagree), you only write that you "nak" it.



Regards,
Bernhard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/