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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:35:15 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys_ioperm

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> >> Wouldn't it be more useful for this to be a sysctl?  In particular, like
> >> many similar things it probably should be a lockable sysctl (three
> >> states: enabled, disabled, and locked-disabled).
> >>
> >> Making it a compile-time option I'm very skeptical to.
> > 
> > Are there existing examples of this already in the tree?
> 
> I think so, but I don't know off the top of my head.

/proc/sys/kernel/modules_disabled is a sort-of that kind of thing (it 
doesn't have three states, but only two -- enabled and locked-disabled).

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

--
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/