linux-kernel - Re: Partially Privileged Applications

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]

Date:	Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:44:52 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Shahbaz Youssefi <shabbyx@...il.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Partially Privileged Applications

Am 10.11.2013 17:24, schrieb Shahbaz Youssefi:
> Not sure if I understood you (or you understood me). We don't throw
> away anything. Only difference would be instead of generating a trap
> to call a function in the kernel, we can just call it and have the
> hardware take care of privileges. The "trap way" is the one that
> actually seems hacky! A hack proposed to fix the brain-dead processors
> of twenty years ago.
> 
> As a bonus you would also have more control over what parts of a
> driver actually get run in privileged mode.
> 
> Care to explain why you would call this a step backwards?

Maybe I did not understand your idea. But to me it sounds like plain old call gates.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_gate

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/