linux-kernel - Re: CONFIG

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: <1201061860.25284.28.camel@perihelion>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:17:40 -0500
From:	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: CONFIG_MARKERS


On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 22:10 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Frank Ch. Eigler (fche@...hat.com) wrote:
> > 
> > Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com> writes:
> > 
> > > I notice in module.c:
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_MARKERS
> > > 	if (!mod->taints)
> > > 		marker_update_probe_range(mod->markers,
> > > 			mod->markers + mod->num_markers, NULL, NULL);
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > Is this an attempt to not set a marker for proprietary modules? [...]
> > 
> > I can't seem to find any discussion about this aspect.  If this is the
> > intent, it seems misguided to me.  There may instead be a relationship
> > to TAINT_FORCED_{RMMOD,MODULE}.  Mathieu?
> > 
> > - FChE
> 
> On my part, its mostly a matter of not crashing the kernel when someone
> tries to force modprobe of a proprietary module (where the checksums
> doesn't match) on a kernel that supports the markers. Not doing so
> causes the markers to try to find the marker-specific information in
> struct module which doesn't exist and OOPSes.
> 
> Christoph's point of view is rather more drastic than mine : it's not
> interesting for the kernel community to help proprietary modules writers,
> so it's a good idea not to give them marker support. (I CC'ed him so he
> can clarify his position).

Right. I thought that was your collective opinion, and I happen to
personally agree with you, but my question was more that you should be
explicitly comparing to whether it's proprietary and not just whether
the taints field is set - there are other flags in there too.

Jon.


--
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/