linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE

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:	Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:59:39 +0200
From:	pageexec@...email.hu
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>, x86@...nel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to feature-removal-schedule

On 6 Jun 2011 at 16:44, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * pageexec@...email.hu <pageexec@...email.hu> wrote:
> 
> > > > Seriously. The whole patch series just seems annoying.
> > 
> > what is annoying is your covering up of security fixes on grounds 
> > that you don't want to help script kiddies (a bullshit argument as 
> > it were) but at the same time question proactive security measures 
> > (one can debate the implementation, see my other mail) that would 
> > *actually* prevent the same kiddies from writing textbook exploits.
> 
> You are mixing up several issues here, and rather unfairly so.

but it's very simple logic Ingo. it goes like 'I am not willing to
do A because it would help script kiddies but I'd rather do B that
would help script kiddies'. with A = 'disclose security bugs' and
B = 'keep the last roadblock that prevents full ASLR'.

if someone's that worried about script kiddies as Linus claims to be
(which i always called a BS argument, but let's accept here), he can't
possibly argue for keeping the vsyscall page at a fixed address around,
simple as that.

and it is for security, no other reason, else you'd have to accept a patch
that maps the vdso at a fixed address again or come up with some very
convincing arguments why the vdso must stay randomized but the vsyscall
page is fine at a fixed address (i guess neither is forthcoming but you
guys can act in surprising ways, so i'm not placing any bets ;).

> Firstly, see my other mail, there's an imperfect balance to be
> found between statistical 'proactive' measures and the incentives
> that remove the *real* bugs.

i hope i replied to this already now to your satisfaction else feel free
to elaboarte.

> Secondly, *once* a real security bug has been found the correct 
> action is different from the considerations of proactive measures. 

as i said already, you're mixing up fixing bugs and fighting exploit
techniques. apples vs. oranges.

> How can you possibly draw equivalence between disclosure policies
> and the handling of statistical security measures?

see the simple logic above.

--
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/