linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] exec: seal system mappings

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <202501061713.823E772F@keescook>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 17:17:10 -0800
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, jeffxu@...omium.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jannh@...gle.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	jorgelo@...omium.org, sroettger@...gle.com, ojeda@...nel.org,
	adobriyan@...il.com, anna-maria@...utronix.de, mark.rutland@....com,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, Jason@...c4.com, deller@....de,
	rdunlap@...radead.org, davem@...emloft.net, hch@....de,
	peterx@...hat.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
	gerg@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...nel.org,
	ardb@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, ardb@...gle.com, enh@...gle.com,
	rientjes@...gle.com, groeck@...omium.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
	Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <mike.rapoport@...il.com>,
	Alexander Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] exec: seal system mappings

On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 03:48:23PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> So we have at least two userspace uses that this will breaks: checkpoint
> restore and now gVisor, but who knows what else?  How many config
> options before we decide this can't be just on by default?

See my reply to Lorenzo, but I'm not arguing for it to be enabled by
default. I was trying to show how we traditionally handle these kinds
of features: putting their enablement behind a Kconfig and boot param
that work together. That way distro kernels have it _available_ without
making it _enabled_, and specialty kernels can have in enabled by default
(and can disable it at boot if needed too).

-- 
Kees Cook