Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 00:10:17 -0400
From: Matt Brown <>
To: James Morris <>,
 Boris Lukashev <>
Cc: Alan Cox <>,
 Greg KH <>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <>,
 Kees Cook <>,,
 linux-security-module <>,
 linux-kernel <>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] security: tty: make TIOCSTI
 ioctl require CAP_SYS_ADMIN

On 05/30/2017 10:48 PM, James Morris wrote:
> 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:
>   "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

I agree that these patches aren't kernel self protection and I don't
believe I have claimed they are such a thing. These patches I'm
presenting are more akin to ptrace protections that are found in Yama.

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.