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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:21:01 +0000
From:   "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:     "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

<snip>

> 
> As a _singlular_ argument, "it's for out-of-tree code" is weak. As an _additional_
> argument, it has value. Saying "this only helps out-of-tree code" doesn't carry
> much weight. Saying "this helps kernel security, even for out-of-tree code" is
> perfectly valid. And a wrinkle in this is that some day, either that out-of-tree
> code, or brand new code, will land in the kernel, and we don't want to continue
> to require authors be aware of an opt-in security feature. The kernel should
> protect itself (and all of itself, including out-of-tree or future code) by default.
> 

I should have made this more clear in my message, this was in my head and I assumed
that people would just get it. But I shouldn't have made such an assumption.

> And based on my read of this thread, we all appear to be in violent agreement. :)
> "always protect %p" is absolutely the goal, and we can figure out the best way to
> get there.
> 
> -Kees
> 
> --
> Kees Cook
> Nexus Security