[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6baf73e-35fd-fe12-bb5f-b9b4e334ae83@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 14:18:58 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.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()
On 05.10.20 13:21, David Laight wrote:
> 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?
You mean via something like a boot parameter? Possibly yes.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists