linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys

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: <20110715000037.3fc1670a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:00:37 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys_ioperm

> > a) you can do this with a security module
> 
> I can?   How?   The whole LSM approach seems intractable to me.

It would certainly need some trivial tweaking (to be specific we'd need
to move from capable(x) to capable_syscall(x, syscall_code) for those
interfaces that mattered, but that would probably be a good thing anyway
from the point of view of beating the capability model into something more
flexible and would help stuff like SELinux as well I think.

We have an underlying separation of security from the other details - we
really should keep it clean that way.

Alan
--
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/