[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070216202135.GA22121@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:21:35 -0500
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
akpm@...l.org, herbert.xu@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arjan@...radead.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:13:04PM +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Now, this is not a complete solution by any means: the core kernel is not
> > protected, and nor are /dev/mem or /dev/kmem, but it denies (or at least
> > controls) one relatively simple attack vector.
>
> Could we fix the /dev/*mem holes, first? They are already used by
> malicious modules (aka rootkits...). Or can selinux already provide
> /dev/*mem protection with no way for admin to turn it off?
There are some valid uses for peeking through /dev/mem. Things like
dmidecode for example. So you don't want to disable it completely
in a lot of cases, but have fine-grained access to specific parts
of the file. I'm not sure SELinux can do this. Maybe the MLS stuff
helps here (though I'm far from an expert on this, so I could be
talking out of my rear).
The restricted dev/mem patches we've had in Fedora for a while
do the right thing, but they're a bit crufty (in part due to
drivers/char/mem.c being a bit of a mess before we even start
patching it). I've had "clean these up for upstream" on my
todo for a while. I might get around to it one of these days.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists