Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:58:16 -0500 (EST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: tytso@....edu Cc: gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, keescook@...omium.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, tixxdz@...il.com, luto@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, james.l.morris@...cle.com, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, solar@...nwall.com, serge@...lyn.com, jeyu@...nel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, corbet@....net, mingo@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 next 1/5] modules:capabilities: add request_module_cap() From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:54:06 -0500 > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:50:14AM -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> >> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:46:12 +0000 >> >> > I really don't care what the module loading rules end up with and >> > whether we add CAP_SYS_YET_ANOTHER_MEANINGLESS_FLAG but what is >> > actually needed is to properly incorporate it into securiy ruiles >> > for whatever LSM you are using. >> >> I'm surprised we're not using the SHA1 hashes or whatever we compute >> for the modules to make sure we are loading the foo.ko that we expect >> to be. > > We do have signed modules. But this won't help us if the user is > using a distro kernel which has compiled some module which is known to > be unmaintained which everyone in the know *expects* to have 0-day > bugs, such as DCCP. That's because the DCCP module is signed. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about making sure that loading "ppp.ko" really gets ppp.ko rather than some_other_module.ko renamed to ppp.ko via some other mechanism. Both modules have legitimate signatures so the kernel will happily load both.
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.