linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allow individual features to be locked down

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: <00b29ba9-e886-4464-be39-731789cef72b@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 18:47:52 +0300
From: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, serge@...lyn.com, kees@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
 linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allow individual features to be locked down



On 9.04.25 г. 18:45 ч., Dan Williams wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 6:24 AM Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This simple change allows usecases where someone might want to  lock only specific
>>> feature at a finer granularity than integrity/confidentiality levels allows.
>>> The first likely user of this is the CoCo subsystem where certain features will be
>>> disabled.
>>>
>>> Nikolay Borisov (2):
>>>    lockdown: Switch implementation to using bitmap
>>>    lockdown/kunit: Introduce kunit tests
>>
>> Hi Nikolay,
>>
>> Thanks for the patches!  With the merge window opening in a few days,
>> it is too late to consider this for the upcoming merge window so
>> realistically this patchset is two weeks out and I'm hopeful we'll
>> have a dedicated Lockdown maintainer by then so I'm going to defer the
>> ultimate decision on acceptance to them.
> 
> The patches in this thread proposed to selectively disable /dev/mem
> independent of all the other lockdown mitigations. That goal can be
> achieved with more precision with this proposed patch:
> 
> http://lore.kernel.org/67f5b75c37143_71fe2949b@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch


True, however I think increasing the granularity of the lockdown 
subsystem merits its own discussion, notwithstanding COCO use case.