linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] perf: bogus correlation of kernel symbols

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: <20110512.164319.1770509419224900253.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 12 May 2011 16:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	eranian@...gle.com, acme@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf: bogus correlation of kernel symbols

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:31:37 -0700

> That said, I have considered just reverting the thing that makes
> kptr_restrict be 1 by default. I do like the security implications of
> restricting visibility into kernel pointers, but I also think that
> security rules that make the system less usable are dubious. So I
> dunno.

We don't have any firewalling or SELINUX rules installed by default,
even if those features are enabled in the kernel.  Userspace asks for
it.

Many people would claim that use of such things are "essential" these
days.

I don't see a good reason to handle kptr_restrict any differently.
--
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/