linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Patch] kcore: restrict access to the whole memory

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: <20101222150209.8e18afa7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:02:09 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] kcore: restrict access to the whole memory

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:21:59 +0800
Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote:

> This patch restricts /proc/kcore from accessing the whole memory,
> instead, only an ELF header can be read.
> 
> The initial patch was done by Vivek.

Getting a bit tired of this.

Are we supposed to be mind-readers?  How else are we to work out why
you think Linux needs this feature?  What problems it solves?  What
applications are expected to break and what the breakage patterns are? 
Why the benefits are worth the maintenance costs and the risk of
breakage?  Why it's done with a config option and not a boot-time or
runtime tunable?

c'mon, you guys have been around long enough to understand this stuff.
--
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/