From: Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: restrict pid namespaces to 32 or 64 bit syscalls
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:20:28 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110814092028.GB14293@openwall.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <632d03b0-6725-431e-b100-13f5046b03e9@email.android.com>
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:08:57PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> >Sounds to me a better alternative would be more aggressive, pro-active
> >fuzzing of the compat calls.
[...]
> Agreed. Other than that, I can see a fine-grained permission filter, but the compat vs noncompat axis is just spurious.
In case anyone cares, I respectfully disagree. I am with Vasiliy on
this. I think that proactive fuzzing is great, but it is not an
alternative - we can also do both fuzzing and reduction of attack
surface at once. With Vasiliy reusing an existing check (in a future
revision of the patch), there's not going to be any performance impact.
Fine-grained restrictions would be great, but the 32- vs. 64-bit
restriction makes sense to me as well. I expect different systems to
use these different kinds of restrictions in different cases.
We will definitely want to support x32 as well. We'd appreciate any
suggestions on how to do it best.
Thanks,
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-14 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-12 15:03 [RFC] x86: restrict pid namespaces to 32 or 64 bit syscalls Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-08-12 20:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-13 6:22 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-08-13 15:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-13 16:32 ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-08-14 9:09 ` Solar Designer
2011-08-18 14:40 ` [RFC v2] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-08-14 2:38 ` [RFC] " Andi Kleen
2011-08-14 5:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-14 9:20 ` Solar Designer [this message]
2011-08-14 14:48 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-14 15:27 ` Andi Kleen
2011-08-14 15:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-14 23:29 ` James Morris
2011-08-15 0:18 ` Andi Kleen
2011-08-15 0:32 ` [kernel-hardening] " Will Drewry
2011-08-15 0:58 ` Andi Kleen
2011-08-14 16:08 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-08-15 18:51 ` Solar Designer
2011-08-15 18:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-15 20:14 ` Solar Designer
2011-08-15 20:27 ` Andi Kleen
2011-08-15 20:48 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-15 22:13 ` Eric Paris
2011-08-16 1:18 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110814092028.GB14293@openwall.com \
--to=solar@openwall.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=segoon@openwall.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox