linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] driver: base: Add driver filter support

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:   Thu, 5 Aug 2021 21:28:42 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] driver: base: Add driver filter support

On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 12:08:52PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/5/21 12:01 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > What's wrong with the generic authorized proposal? The core can
> > default to deauthorizing devices on the platform bus, or any bus,
> > unless on an allow list. It's a bit more work to uplevel the local
> > "authorized" implementations from USB and Thunderbolt to the core, but
> > it's functionally identical to the "filter" approach in terms of
> > protection, i.e. avoiding probe of unnecessary unvetted drivers.
> 
> I have not yet read about the "authorized" model in USB and Thunderbolt.
> So bear with me if my question is basic or obvious. In the case USB
> authorized model, who maintains the allow list? kernel or userspace?

Please go read the documentation and don't ask others to do your work
for you...