linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] usercopy whitelisting for v4.15-rc1

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: <20171120195027.GA20045@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:50:27 +0000
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] usercopy whitelisting for v4.15-rc1

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 01:13:10PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So the hardening efforts should instead _start_ from the standpoint of
> "let's warn about what looks dangerous, and maybe in a _year_ when
> we've warned for a long time, and we are confident that we've actually
> caught all the normal cases, _then_ we can start taking more drastic
> measures".

Can you clarify a little with regard to how you'd have liked this 
patchset to look? With 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=usercopy-v4.15-rc1&id=93edfb33387772a9ae7693ddf9811280ffc4025b 
it seems pretty like we're at the end goal you've described (default to 
a mode that generates a warning rather than returning an error), so is 
it just that this appeared at the end of the patchset development 
process rather than being there from the beginning?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org