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
| ||
|
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