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]

Message-ID: <YQzF/utgrJfbZuHh@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Aug 2021 07:17:50 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...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 06:00:25PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> That said, per-device authorization is a little bit different than
> per-driver trust. Driver trust is easy to reason about for a built-in
> policy, while per-device authorization is easy for userspace to reason
> about for "why is this device not talking to its driver?".

See my other email about how the "per driver" trust is the wrong model,
you need to stick to "per device" trust.  Especially given that you are
giving control of your kernel drivers over to third parties, you already
trust them to do the right thing.

thanks,

greg k-h