[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <511C1284.6080304@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:24:04 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Lock down MSR writing in secure boot
On 02/13/2013 11:55 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 13/02/2013 18:22, H. Peter Anvin ha scritto:
>>>
>>> On non-x86 machines CAP_SYS_RAWIO is much less dangerous, especially
>>> when coupled with file DAC.
>
> Discretionary Access Control.
>
>> Either way, I think you are at best deluded and more like you just
>> completely wrong about CAP_SYS_RAWIO being "less dangerous on non-x86
>> machines". With the possible exception of s390 I suspect it is, in
>> fact, more dangerous.
>
> I may well be wrong, but as a quick data point CAP_SYS_RAWIO has no
> occurrences in arch/ except arch/x86. Of course a lot of driver
> functionality will be limited to CAP_SYS_RAWIO, but usually this
> requires having a file descriptor for some file.
>
Well, yes, although that could include /dev/mem.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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