linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 next 5/5] net: modules: use request_module

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171129063639.tuacfa2op6fgj6he@thunk.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 01:36:39 -0500
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Geo Kozey <geokozey@...lfence.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 next 5/5] net: modules: use
 request_module_cap() to load 'netdev-%s' modules

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 04:18:59PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> There's also a difference between immutable CONFIG options that cannot
> be disabled at runtime, those that can, global sysctls, per-namespace
> controls, etc etc. The kernel is all about providing admins with knobs
> to tweak their performance and security. Suddenly being told that we
> can't create optional improvements is very odd.

I just think that tweakable knobs are mostly pointless.  From my
experience the number of sysadmins that adjust knobs is ***tiny***[1].
Put another way, the effort to determine whether tweaking a knob will
result in breakages or will be safe is as much work as creating a
white list of modules that are allowed to be loaded.

[1] And I say that having providing a lot of knobs for ext4.  :-)

This is why some on the kernel-hardening list have argued for making
the default to be opt-out, which means some users will be breaken (and
their answer to that seems to be, "oh well --- gotta break some eggs
to make an omlette".  Sucks if you're one of the eggs, though.)

And I don't see how systemd magically means no one will be broken.  If
you have a non-root process trying to invoke a line discpline which
has to be loaded as a module, if you flip the switch, that process
will be broken.  How does using systemd make the problem go away?

					- Ted