linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] Restrictions on module loading

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: <1289219016.10229.14.camel@dan>
Date:	Mon, 08 Nov 2010 07:23:36 -0500
From:	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, security@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Restrictions on module loading

> NAK - Its a long standing ABI.

As far as I can tell, modules_disabled was first included in 2.6.31, so
it's hardly what I'd call "long standing".  However, I see your point -
it's definitely not my intention to surprise anyone by changing security
features out from under them.

I do think merging the features makes sense in this case.  I'll rework
this to keep the "modules_disabled" name, where a value of "0" means
default behavior, a value of "1" means no loading or unloading (and no
changing it back), and the new value of "2" incorporates the
restrictions I'm intending to enforce.

> 
> I've no objection to modules_restrict although I doubt it'll ever get
> used in the real world, but better to extend the meaning of the existing
> interface, not remove stuff.
> 

There has been interest in improving the ease with which users can
enforce restrictions on automatic module loading.  No one is being
forced to use it.

-Dan

--
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/