linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit

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]

Message-ID: <46F8822D.2010003@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:36:13 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, greg@...ah.com,
	stern@...land.harvard.edu, kay.sievers@...y.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit_unload()

Rusty Russell wrote:
> As stated you cannot protect arbitrary code this way, as you are trying
> to do.  I do not think you've broken any of the current code, but I
> cannot tell.  You're certainly going to surprise unsuspecting future
> authors.

Can you elaborate a bit?  Why can't it protect the code?

> Can you really not figure out the module owner of the sysfs entry to inc
> its use count during this procedure?  (__module_get()).

I can but I don't think it's worth the effort.  It will involve passing
@owner parameter down through kobject to sysfs but the path is pretty
obscure and thus difficult to test.  I think it's too much work for the
users of the API and it will be easy to pass the wrong @owner and go
unnoticed.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
-
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/