Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:41:30 -0800 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>, Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>, Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 next 0/5] Improve Module autoloading infrastructure On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com> wrote: > > The sysctl flag is available at "/proc/sys/kernel/modules_autoload_mode" > > When modules_autoload_mode is set to (0), the default, there are no > restrictions. So quick question: do we actually need this? Yes, it may be the current default, but is it anything that people actually depend on? I'd have expected that most module loading comes from system actions anyway, not normal users. So I'd like to explore first whether it even makes sense to make a new option. New options are bad because: - opt-in security isn't security at all - having to configure things is complex so we should generally strive to _not_ need new random config options. What are the real life use-cases for normal users having modules auto-load? Linus
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.