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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:08:34 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 next 5/5] net: modules: use
 request_module_cap() to load 'netdev-%s' modules

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> That mainly leaves the protocol ones we need to look out for, I suspect.
>
> This is where a lot of the exposure really comes from. socket()
> triggers a bunch of stuff, but doesn't have an obvious privilege
> associated with it... while it already does the name templates, maybe
> add request_module_socket() just to explicitly mark it?

.. and this is where I'd expect that maybe we'd need some hackery.

Even including some ad-hoc rules like "this module is actually
maintained", possibly even with some /sys interface to extend/reduce
that set.

But maybe it's not even that bad.

                Linus