Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 12:48:50 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> To: Boris Lukashev <blukashev@...pervictus.com> cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Matt Brown <matt@...tt.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] security: tty: make TIOCSTI ioctl require CAP_SYS_ADMIN On Mon, 29 May 2017, Boris Lukashev wrote: > With all due respect sir, i believe your review falls short of the > purpose of this effort - to harden the kernel against flaws in > userspace. Which effort? Kernel self protection is about protecting against flaws in the kernel. See: https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project "This project starts with the premise that kernel bugs have a very long lifetime, and that the kernel must be designed in ways to protect against these flaws." We need to avoid conflating: - hardening the kernel against attack; and - modifying the kernel to try and harden userspace. These patches are the latter, and the case for them is not as straightforward. - James -- James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
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.