From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: matt@nmatt.com (Matt Brown) Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 00:10:17 -0400 Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] security: tty: make TIOCSTI ioctl require CAP_SYS_ADMIN In-Reply-To: References: <20170529213800.29438-1-matt@nmatt.com> <20170529213800.29438-3-matt@nmatt.com> <20170529232640.16211960@alans-desktop> Message-ID: To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org 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: > https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project > > "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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html