linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] kref: Implement using refcount

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: <20161116085130.GA26208@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:51:30 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] kref: Implement using refcount_t

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:31:55AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So what I'd love to see is to have a kernel option that re-introduces some 
> historic root (and other) holes that can be exploited deterministically - 
> obviously default disabled.

Ick, I don't want to have to support nasty #ifdefs for
"CONFIG_TOTALLY_INSECURE" type options in code logic for the next 20+
years, do you?

> I'd restrict this to reasonably 'deterministic' holes, and the exploits themselves 
> could be somewhere in tools/. (Obviously only where the maintainers agree to host 
> the code.) They wouldn't give a root shell, they'd only test whether they reached 
> uid0 (or some other elevated privilege).

Having exploits in tools/ would be good, I would like to see that, as
then we can ensure that we don't ever introduce old problems that we
have fixed again in the future.  That I have no objection to.

thanks,

greg k-h