linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Add basic sanity checks to the syscall execution patch

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: <20080905204830.GB18288@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2008 22:48:30 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	pageexec@...email.hu
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...x.de, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [patch] Add basic sanity checks to the syscall execution patch

On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 09:42:48PM +0200, pageexec@...email.hu wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2008 at 19:26, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > 
> > First such checkers already exist -- they are called root kit checkers.
> > There are various around. 
> > Usually operate from user space. You could run them in a cron job.
> 
> how trivial do you think it is for *kernel* code to evade *userland*
> checking it? ;) otherwise agreed with rest.

It depends on where the userland runs. e.g. if it's under a hypervisor
and in a separate domain it should be reasonably safe.

And then I don't think it is much difference between Ingo's kernel
checker and a user land checker. Both can be disabled it you know
about them.

-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/