linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/39] Annotate module params that specify hardware parameters (eg. ioport)

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, 5 Dec 2016 21:12:27 +0000
From:   One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        minyard@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/39] Annotate module params that specify hardware
 parameters (eg. ioport)

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:02:26 +0000
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > Also, I think Alan's comment about it the last time it came up was more like
> > a "look at all of the other ways you could do bad things to hardware!"
> > comment, not a "you need to also do this thing too!" type of request.  


In all honesty I think both need to go in together, otherwise the first
patch is useless. It's not a case of "oh there may be another obscure
exploit .." , this is "I can automate it with a python script, post a
CVE, and show I'm awesome" 8)

Alan