Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:28:18 +0100 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] make call_usermodehelper a bit more "safe" Hi Greg, On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > So, anyone have any better ideas? Is this approach worth it? Or should > we just go down the "whitelist" path? I think your approach is generally better than the whitelist path. But maybe there's yet a third approach that involves futzing with page permissions at runtime. I think grsec does something similar with read_mostly function pointer structs. Namely, they make them read-only const, and then temporarily twiddle the page permissions if it needs to be changed while disabling preemption. There could be a particular class of data that needs to be "opened" and "closed" in order to modify. Seems like these strings would be a good use of that. Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.