linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] proc: restrict /proc/pid/mem

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <202406121123.B0F60E91E@keescook>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:23:48 -0700
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@...labora.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com, gbiv@...gle.com,
	ryanbeltran@...gle.com, inglorion@...gle.com, ajordanr@...gle.com,
	jorgelo@...omium.org, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>,
	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] proc: restrict /proc/pid/mem

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 07:13:41PM +0100, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> Would macros like the following be acceptable?
> I know it's more verbose but also much easier to understand and it works.
> 
> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_OPEN_READ_ALL)
> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE_RO(proc_mem_restrict_open_read_all);
> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE_RO(proc_mem_restrict_open_read_ptracer);
> #elif IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_OPEN_READ_PTRACE)
> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE_RO(proc_mem_restrict_open_read_all);
> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE_RO(proc_mem_restrict_open_read_ptracer);
> #else
> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE_RO(proc_mem_restrict_open_read_all);
> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE_RO(proc_mem_restrict_open_read_ptracer);
> #endif

Yeah, that'd be fine by me. I was a little concerned I was
over-generalizing those macros. :P

-- 
Kees Cook