linux-kernel - Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches

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: <1249666990.2694.6.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:43:10 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com,
	douglas.leeder@...hos.com, pavel@....cz,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	malware-list@...sg.printk.net, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	greg@...ah.com, jcm@...hat.com, tytso@....edu, arjan@...radead.org,
	david@...g.hm, jengelh@...ozas.de, aviro@...hat.com,
	mrkafk@...il.com, alexl@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, mmorley@....in
Subject: Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches

On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 18:36 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009, Eric Paris wrote:
> > just work.  The whole reason for the timeout is because I don't trust
> > userspace not to get it wrong and I'd rather not lose my box because of
> > it.
> 
> IMO this has nothing to do with userspace(*) and everything to do with
> complexity.  Virus scanning is complex and any such code, whether
> runing in userspace or not, can easily screw up and freeze the system.

I agree, 'userspace' was not the best term.  Let me rephrase:

"The whole reason for the timeout is because I don't trust anything not
to get it wrong and I'd rather not lose my box because of it."

> The way to solve that is not to implement hacks on the kernel
> interface, but rather by separating the complex parts and implementing
> a simple watchdog layer on top of that, that makes sure things don't
> go wrong.

So you would argue that every fanotify listener implement their own
watchdog layer that may or may not be correct rather than do a single
watchdog layer for everyone?  And that's better?

-Eric

--
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/