kernel-hardening.lists.openwall.com archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Jeff Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 1/2] security, perf: allow further restriction of perf_event_open
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:10:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160804161000.GA11673@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1470325468.22643.95.camel@gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 11:44:28AM -0400, Daniel Micay wrote:
> Qualcomm's drivers might be lower quality than core kernel code, but
> they're way above the baseline set by mainline kernel drivers...

I don't think that's true for the arm/arm64 perf code.

I think we've done a reasonable job of testing and fixing those, along
with core infrastructure issues. The perf fuzzer runs for a very long
time on a mainline kernel without issues, while on my Nexus 5x I get a
hard lockup after ~85 seconds (and prior to the last android update the
lockup was instantaneous).

> Shining the same light on mainline drivers wouldn't be pretty. The work
> going into hardening the Qualcomm drivers isn't happening upstream to
> any comparable extent.

>From my personal experience (and as above), and talking specifically
about PMU drivers, I think that the opposite is true. This is not to say
there aren't issues; I would not be surprised if there are. But it's
disingenuous to say that mainline code is worse than that which exists
in a vendor kernel when the latter is demonstrably much easier to break
than the former.

If there are issues you are aware of, please report them. If those
issues only exist in non-upstream code, then the applicable concerns are
somewhat different (though certainly still exist).

But please, let's frame the argument to match reality.

Thanks,
Mark.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-08-04 16:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-27 14:45 [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 1/2] security, perf: allow further restriction of perf_event_open Jeff Vander Stoep
2016-07-27 20:43 ` Kees Cook
2016-08-02  9:52 ` [kernel-hardening] " Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-02 13:04   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2016-08-02 13:10     ` Daniel Micay
2016-08-02 13:16   ` Daniel Micay
2016-08-02 19:04   ` Kees Cook
2016-08-02 20:30     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-02 20:51       ` Kees Cook
2016-08-02 21:06         ` Jeffrey Vander Stoep
2016-08-03  8:28         ` Ingo Molnar
2016-08-03 12:28           ` Daniel Micay
2016-08-03 12:53             ` Daniel Micay
2016-08-03 13:36             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-03 14:41         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-03 15:42           ` Schaufler, Casey
2016-08-03 17:25         ` Eric W. Biederman
2016-08-03 18:53           ` Kees Cook
2016-08-03 21:44             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-04  2:50               ` Eric W. Biederman
2016-08-04  9:11                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-04 15:13                   ` Eric W. Biederman
2016-08-04 15:37                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-03 19:36           ` Daniel Micay
2016-08-04 10:28             ` Mark Rutland
2016-08-04 13:45               ` Daniel Micay
2016-08-04 14:11                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-04 15:44                   ` Daniel Micay
2016-08-04 15:55                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-04 16:10                     ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2016-08-04 16:32                       ` Daniel Micay
2016-08-04 17:09                         ` Mark Rutland
2016-08-04 17:36                           ` Daniel Micay
2016-08-02 21:16       ` Jeffrey Vander Stoep
2016-10-17 13:44 ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2016-10-17 14:54   ` Daniel Micay
2016-10-19  9:41     ` Mark Rutland
2016-10-19 15:16       ` Daniel Micay
2016-10-18 20:48   ` Kees Cook
2016-10-18 21:15     ` Daniel Micay
2016-10-19  9:56       ` Mark Rutland
2016-10-19 10:01       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-19 10:26         ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2016-10-19 10:40           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-19 15:39           ` Daniel Micay

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=20160804161000.GA11673@leverpostej \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=jeffv@google.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).