linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] mm: optionally disable brk()

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:   Mon, 5 Oct 2020 11:21:37 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'David Hildenbrand' <david@...hat.com>,
        Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
CC:     "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] mm: optionally disable brk()

From: David Hildenbrand
> Sent: 05 October 2020 10:55
...
> > If hardening and compatibility are seen as tradeoffs, perhaps there
> > could be a top level config choice (CONFIG_HARDENING_TRADEOFF) for this.
> > It would have options
> > - "compatibility" (default) to gear questions for maximum compatibility,
> > deselecting any hardening options which reduce compatibility
> > - "hardening" to gear questions for maximum hardening, deselecting any
> > compatibility options which reduce hardening
> > - "none/manual": ask all questions like before
> 
> I think the general direction is to avoid an exploding set of config
> options. So if there isn't a *real* demand, I guess gluing this to a
> single option ("CONFIG_SECURITY_HARDENING") might be good enough.

Wouldn't that be better achieved by run-time clobbering
of the syscall vectors?

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)