linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] Add the ability to lock down access to the running kernel image

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]

Date:   Fri, 26 May 2017 13:43:12 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
        matthew.garrett@...ula.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] Add the ability to lock down access to the running kernel image

Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:

> You called out five distinct features in 0/5, so how about
> a bit for each of those?

Actually, there are more than five in that list - there are three in the first
item - and I'm not sure the remaining categories are quite as well defined as
I made it seem.

Also, that sort of categorisation might not be what we actually need: it might
end up coming down to a no-write vs no-read-or-write split instead.

> Actually, I don't care which way you go. The current code works
> for me. I am just concerned that the granularity fiends might come
> around later.

In that case, I'll leave it as is for the moment.  It doesn't introduce so
many calls that they're impossible to change.

David