[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACdnJutc7OQeoor6WLTh8as10da_CN=crs79v3Fp0mJTaO=+yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:15:36 -0800
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: Add kernel config option for fuzz testing.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:11 PM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> Here is an example of need to lockdown specific ations. Can we proceed?
As I said before, unless the thing being blocked is a primitive that's
intended to allow modification or reading of kernel memory (directly
or indirectly), I don't think lockdown is the right place for it to
be.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists