linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86-64, vsyscalls: Rename UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to COMPAT

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: <20110609070215.GD7734@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:02:15 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	pageexec@...email.hu
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>, x86@...nel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64, vsyscalls: Rename UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to
 COMPAT_VSYSCALLS


* pageexec@...email.hu <pageexec@...email.hu> wrote:

> On 7 Jun 2011 at 12:05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > * pageexec@...email.hu <pageexec@...email.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > you called this feature "borderline security FUD" but have yet 
> > > to prove it.
> > 
> > No, i did not claim that this feature is "borderline security 
> > FUD", at all.
> 
> so can i take it as your concession that the vsyscall feature is 
> indeed a security problem and it's being randomized/(re)moved for 
> security reasons?

Again, i made two statements:

  "That naming is borderline security FUD"
  "It's only a security problem if there's a security hole elsewhere."

I stand by those statements and i reject your repeated attempts to 
put words in my mouth that i did not say, such as:

   > you called this feature "borderline security FUD" [...]

> in that case the naming of this feature is correct and you have no 
> reason to call it "borderline security FUD". so make up your mind!
> 
> > That the *NAMING* is borderline security FUD. (I already applied 
> > the patches before i wrote that mail, see the commit 
> > notifications on lkml.)
> 
> how can the name be "borderline security FUD" but what the name 
> refers to not be that? you see, we name things for a reason, mostly 
> because we think the name has something to do with the thing it 
> names, duh?

It's borderline security FUD because it suggests that keeping the 
vsyscall around is in itself a security hole. As i outlined whether 
there's *another* bug that *can be exploited* is highly dependent on 
the usecase - while the Kconfig name made no such distinction. (For 
example a device maker might choose to keep the option enabled in 
some embedded usecase, those are pretty limited environments that 
have few vectors of attack.)

Anyway, repeating and explaining my arguments a dozen times did not 
make any difference to you, and there's a point where i have to stop 
wasting time on a person, so i've started filtering out your mails. 
If you want to send me any patches then please send it to any of my 
co-maintainers who will be able to review them.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/