Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 12:50:25 -0700 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com> Cc: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Zendyani <zendyani@...il.com>, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 next 0/3] modules: automatic module loading restrictions On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: >> For modules_autoload_mode=2, we already seem to have the equivalent of >> modprobe=/bin/true (or does it differ subtly, maybe in return values?), >> which I already use at startup on a GPU box like this (preloading >> modules so that the OpenCL backends wouldn't need the autoloading): >> >> nvidia-smi >> nvidia-modprobe -u -c=0 >> #modprobe nvidia_uvm >> #modprobe fglrx >> >> sysctl -w kernel.modprobe=/bin/true >> sysctl -w kernel.hotplug=/bin/true >> >> but it's good to also have this supported more explicitly and more >> consistently through modules_autoload_mode=2 while we're at it. So I >> support having this mode as well. I just question the need to have it >> non-resettable. > > I agree it's useful to have the explicit =2 state just to avoid > confusion when more systems start implementing > CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER and kernel.modprobe becomes read-only > (though the userspace implementation may allow for some way to disable > it, etc). I just like avoiding the upcall to modprobe at all. I fully support =2 to mean "no automatic loading at all". I dislike making it non-resettable. If you can write to sysctls, then, most likely you can either call init_module() directly or the system has module loading disabled entirely.
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.