linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] printk: introduce kptr

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]

Message-ID: <20161006135612.GA21342@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:56:12 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: introduce kptr_restrict level 3

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 01:47:47PM +0000, Roberts, William C wrote:
> Out of tree modules still affect core kernel security.

So don't use them.

> I would also bet money, that somewhere
> In-tree someone has put a %p when they wanted a %pK.

So fix them.

> So this method is just quite error
> prone. We currently have a blacklist approach versus whitelist.

Or fix the entire thing, get rid of %pK and always protect %p if you
can show that it doesn't break anything.

But stop posting patches with bullshit arguments like out of tree
modules.