On 2015-09-02 17:12, Stas Sergeev wrote: > 02.09.2015 23:55, Andy Lutomirski пишет: >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Stas Sergeev wrote: >>> 02.09.2015 23:22, Josh Boyer пишет: >>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Stas Sergeev wrote: >>>>> 02.09.2015 20:46, Josh Boyer пишет: >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Andy Lutomirski >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I'd be amenable to switching the default back to y and perhaps >>>>>>> adding >>>>>>> a sysctl to make the distros more comfortable. Ingo, Kees, Brian, >>>>>>> what do you think? >>>>>> Can you please leave the default as N, and have a sysctl option to >>>>>> enable it instead? While dosemu might still be in use, it isn't >>>>>> going >>>>>> to be the common case at all. So from a distro perspective, I think >>>>>> we'd probably rather have the default match the common case. >>>>> The fact that fedora doesn't package dosemu, doesn't automatically >>>>> mean all other distros do not too. Since when kernel defaults should >>>>> match the ones of fedora? >>>> I didn't say that. >>> What you said was: >>> --- >>> >>> While dosemu might still be in use, it isn't going >>> to be the common case at all. So from a distro perspective >>> >>> --- >>> ... which is likely true only in fedora circe. >>> >>>> The default right now is N. >>> In a not yet released kernel, unless I am mistaken. >>> If fedora already provides that kernel, other distros likely not. >>> >>>> I asked it be left >>>> that way. That's all. >>> Lets assume its not yet N, unless there was a kernel release already. >>> Its easy to get back if its not too late. >> How about CONFIG_SYSCTL_VM86_DEFAULT which defaults to Y? Fedora >> could set it to N. > Sorry, I don't understand this sysctl proposal. > Could you please educate me what is it all about? > This sysctl will disable or enable the vm86() syscall at run-time, > right? What does it give us? If you disable something in the > config, this gives you, say, smaller kernel image. If OTOH you > add the run-time switch, it gives you a bigger image, regardless > of its default value. > I might be missing something, but I don't understand what > problem will this solve? Have I missed some earlier message > in this thread? The problem this solves is not kernel size, that is not the only reason for wanting to disable a system call. In this case, it's a system call that is unused by all but a very few programs, which are in turn used by a small percentage of users, and said system call does quite a few things that are potentially very dangerous. Disabling it reduces the attack surface of the system.