[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081116160905.17e867da@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:09:05 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
crash-utility@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Turn CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM in sysctl dev.mem.restricted
> because it can load kernel modules?
> or because it can bypass the iommu?
It has iopl, firmware loading, ioperm, raw disk I/O, mknod, module loading
etc etc..
> the point of the /dev/mem restrictions is to not allow things you know
> you don't need, while still allowing X to function where it can access
> the crap it does. Now in Bernhard's case he DOES need them, so he
> shouldn't use the restrictions.
I know what the point is, but it doesn't actually implement any
meaningful restriction to achieve that result, so it is worthless junk.
> > There are proper ways to deal with X, modern video cards and modern
> > security models. They involve using framebuffer mappings off the PCI
> > device node itself and DRI.
> >
> when X has this for all hw that matters /dev/mem could go away for the
> people who then no longer have any need for it.
Why should it go away ? It's a matter of file permissions and security
rules as to who can access it. Trying to make it go away is just more
fake-security crap.
Alan
--
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