[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:12:26 +0300
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
<casey@...aufler-ca.com>, <keescook@...omium.org>, <mhocko@...nel.org>,
<jmorris@...ei.org>
CC: <paul@...l-moore.com>, <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, <hch@...radead.org>,
<labbott@...hat.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Make LSM Writable Hooks a command line option
On 06/06/17 13:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> "Loading modules which are not compiled as built-in" is correct.
> My use case is to allow users to use LSM modules as loadable kernel
> modules which distributors do not compile as built-in.
Ok, so I suppose someone should eventually lock down the header, after
the additional modules are loaded.
Who decides when enough is enough, meaning that all the needed modules
are loaded?
Should I provide an interface to user-space? A sysfs entry?
[...]
> Unloading LSM modules is dangerous. Only SELinux allows unloading
> at the risk of triggering an oops. If we insert delay while removing
> list elements, we can easily observe oops due to free function being
> called without corresponding allocation function.
Ok. But even in this case, the sys proposal would still work.
It would just stay unused.
--
igor
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.
