[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jL4qh5nXBJJQAr-42hZHk7bP0Gn468Sf3i8+W0eo1_LKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:46:56 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: add config options to enable link restrictions
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> There are situations where devices running without initrds may need
>> very early protection from link vulnerabilities
>
> I really don't see what this argument is all about.
>
> If you don't have initrd, you still have early bootup scripts etc.
>
> If your early bootup has security problems, you have security
> problems. It has nothing to do with initrd, or with restricted links,
> or anything else.
I think there's value in being able to enable these protections at
build-time so there's no need for a distro to have to ship extra
files/lines, spend time setting it, etc. This isn't like other
tunables, IMO.
> I also refuse to add these kinds of micro-management config options
> and ask any kind of normal person these kinds of "do you want this
> random crazy feature". A config option would need to be way more sane,
> not this kind of micro-management.
Would a single config item be acceptable? What would be an agreeable
way to enable this at build-time?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists