From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753096AbdK1Vvo (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:51:44 -0500 Received: from wilbur.contactoffice.com ([212.3.242.68]:45375 "EHLO wilbur.contactoffice.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752707AbdK1Vvm (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:51:42 -0500 From: Geo Kozey Reply-To: Geo Kozey To: Linus Torvalds Cc: LSM List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" Message-ID: <708003731.69563.1511905898471@ichabod.co-bxl> In-Reply-To: References: <1511803118-2552-1-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1511803118-2552-6-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1100603534.56586.1511871419952@ichabod.co-bxl> <20171128193243.4fymnjk7fplqw62x@thunk.org> Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 next 5/5] net: modules: use request_module_cap() to load 'netdev-%s' modules MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: ContactOffice Mail X-ContactOffice-Account: com:122083240 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:51:38 +0100 (CET) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > From: Linus Torvalds > Sent: Tue Nov 28 21:33:22 CET 2017 > To: Kees Cook > Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 next 5/5] net: modules: use request_module_cap() to load 'netdev-%s' modules > Because I really am *not* interested in these security flags that are > off by default and then get turned on by special cases. I think it's > completely unacceptable to say "we're insecure by default but then you > can do X and be secure". It doesn't work. It doesn't fix anything. > > Linus > ---------------------------------------- What about "we're insecure by default but you can't do anything to change this"? It describes current situation. For last 20 years linux allowed for insecure behavior and tons of tools were built depending on it. It's recurring theme of kernel security development. I'll be glad if some genius propose perfect idea solving this problem but I'm afraid things go nowhere instead. Yours sincerely G. K. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: geokozey@mailfence.com (Geo Kozey) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:51:38 +0100 (CET) Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 next 5/5] net: modules: use request_module_cap() to load 'netdev-%s' modules In-Reply-To: References: <1511803118-2552-1-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1511803118-2552-6-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1100603534.56586.1511871419952@ichabod.co-bxl> <20171128193243.4fymnjk7fplqw62x@thunk.org> Message-ID: <708003731.69563.1511905898471@ichabod.co-bxl> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org > From: Linus Torvalds > Sent: Tue Nov 28 21:33:22 CET 2017 > To: Kees Cook > Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 next 5/5] net: modules: use request_module_cap() to load 'netdev-%s' modules > Because I really am *not* interested in these security flags that are > off by default and then get turned on by special cases. I think it's > completely unacceptable to say "we're insecure by default but then you > can do X and be secure". It doesn't work. It doesn't fix anything. > > Linus > ---------------------------------------- What about "we're insecure by default but you can't do anything to change this"? It describes current situation. For last 20 years linux allowed for insecure behavior and tons of tools were built depending on it. It's recurring theme of kernel security development. I'll be glad if some genius propose perfect idea solving this problem but I'm afraid things go nowhere instead. Yours sincerely G. K. -- 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geo Kozey Message-ID: <708003731.69563.1511905898471@ichabod.co-bxl> In-Reply-To: References: <1511803118-2552-1-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1511803118-2552-6-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1100603534.56586.1511871419952@ichabod.co-bxl> <20171128193243.4fymnjk7fplqw62x@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:51:38 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 next 5/5] net: modules: use request_module_cap() to load 'netdev-%s' modules To: Linus Torvalds Cc: LSM List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" List-ID: > From: Linus Torvalds > Sent: Tue Nov 28 21:33:22 CET 2017 > To: Kees Cook > Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 next 5/5] net: modules: use request_module_cap() to load 'netdev-%s' modules > Because I really am *not* interested in these security flags that are > off by default and then get turned on by special cases. I think it's > completely unacceptable to say "we're insecure by default but then you > can do X and be secure". It doesn't work. It doesn't fix anything. > > Linus > ---------------------------------------- What about "we're insecure by default but you can't do anything to change this"? It describes current situation. For last 20 years linux allowed for insecure behavior and tons of tools were built depending on it. It's recurring theme of kernel security development. I'll be glad if some genius propose perfect idea solving this problem but I'm afraid things go nowhere instead. Yours sincerely G. K.