linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection

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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFxKsaRFR=Tjs9VJfFk3X4USbGWOvNrMg7BQYv7VX28_zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:14:42 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	vegard.nossum@...cle.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> These locations tend to be very hard to reach accidentally

Not necessarily.

Don't get me wrong - I think that it's a good idea to at least have
the option to complain about certain errors, and leave markers in the
logs about things that look suspicious.

But looking through the recent list of commits that explicitly mention
a CVE, the only one I find where a syslog message would make sense is
the HID validation ones. There, adding a warning about malicious HID
devices sounds like a good idea.

But a *lot* of the rest is just checking ranges or making sure we have
proper string handling etc that just wouldn't be practical to check.
So the error itself may be "hard to reach accidentally", but
*checking* it would be so complex/painful that it would likely just
introduce more room for bugs.

So I think the "WARNING" thing is a good idea, but I think it is a
good idea if it's used very judiciously. IOW, not for "random CVE"
(because quite frankly, most of them seem to be utter shit), but for
serious known issues. And for those issues *only*.

If I start seeing patches adding warnings "just because there's a
CVE", then I'm not in the least interested. But if there is some known
root-kit or similar, then by all means..

                    Linus
--
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/