[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5fb32353b1964299809fce0c7579a092@AcuMS.aculab.com>
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)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists