| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080904130609.GD18288@one.firstfloor.org> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:06:09 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...x.de, hpa@...or.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> Subject: Re: [patch] Add basic sanity checks to the syscall execution patch On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:34:19PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:01:46 +0200 > Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote: > > > Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> writes: > > > > > Add basic sanity checks to the syscall execution patch > > > > This just means that the root kits will switch to patch > > the first instruction of the entry points instead. > > > > So the protection will be zero to minimal, but the overhead will > > be there forever. > > Agreed entirely. This is a waste of time and a game not worth playing. > The only place you can expect to make a difference here is in virtualised Even that can be circumvented by patching indirect pointers (or pointer to objects with indirect pointers) in any writable object. Or in a couple of other ways. But yes it would still seem like a reasonable useful improvement. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- 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