Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:16:29 -0800 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] make call_usermodehelper a bit more "safe" On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:28:18PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > 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. Yes, but that's a much larger issue and if that feature ever lands, we can switch these strings over to that functionality. thanks, greg k-h
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.