linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Lock down drivers that can have io ports, io mem, irqs and dma changed

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:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:41:05 +0000
From:   One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     minyard@....org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        matthew.garrett@...ula.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lock down drivers that can have io ports, io mem, irqs
 and dma changed

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:03:31 +0000
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> How about the attached?  Obviously it need extending to other drivers.
> 
> I thought that if I'm changing the module_param annotations anyway then it's
> probably worth bunging in an extra parameter that notes what the parameter
> modifies (ioport, iomem, etc.) for future reference, even if we don't store
> it.


With a security hat on the security best practice and long standing
accepted rule is that you whitelist rather than blacklist, so there ought
to be a 

module_param_safe_array()
etc

to mark parameters that are safe, not the reverse.


That debate aside I think the patch is exactly what is needed for this,
and is probably useful for more general hardening as well.

Alan