[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150725062343.GA3902@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:23:43 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] x86/ldt: Make modify_ldt optional
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:36:45PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> The modify_ldt syscall exposes a large attack surface and is
> unnecessary for modern userspace. Make it optional.
Andy, you didn't respond whether you think it wouldn't be better to make
it runtime-configurable instead. The goal here is to ensure distros
ship with modify_ldt disabled by default. But if it means breaking
compatibility with (rare) existing applications, I'm seeing a risk
that they'll ship with it enabled instead, which would make the config
option useless. The CONFIG_DEFAULT_MMAP_ADDR was a good example of
successful deployment of a hardening measure that has been widely
adopted despite its (low) risk of breakage in field because it was
adjustable in field.
That's why here I think we should do the same, and possibly even
emit a warning once to report the first user of modify_ldt if that
can help.
What do you think ?
Willy
--
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