lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Partially Privileged Applications
From
Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. You are absolutely right and as I mentioned
before, I came to realize that it would be hard to contain malicious code.

Nevertheless, honest mistakes shouldn't be a big problem. Currently,
if you write a kernel module, you can cause havoc and the only thing
preventing you from inserting a bad module is a `sudo`. For the honest
people (regardless of noob or not), it would be the same. If you want
to run a privileged application, you need a `sudo` and the implications
are as good or as bad as inserting your own kernel module.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Levente Kurusa <levex@linux.com> wrote:
> 2013-11-11 19:44 keltezéssel, Matthias Schniedermeyer írta:
>> On 11.11.2013 14:05, Shahbaz Youssefi wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@citd.de> wrote:
>>>> I don't see a way around "borders" (Papers please), otherwise you can't
>>>> reject things you don't want, you have to check if that something that
>>>> is to be done is allowed. For e.g. you would get around every
>>>> permission-check, because the code you called is allowed to do
>>>> everything.
>>>
>>> You're right actually. Proper linking solves the issue for "good people",
>>> but I can't think of a not-dirty way for preventing bad calls from
>>> "bad people". I may get back here if I do find a solution.
>
> Hi,
>
> What you describe in your blogpost already exists. It is called real-mode.
> Imagine yourself as a userspace developer. You make an application and want
> it to run as fast as possible and therefore you eliminate the mode-switches, which
> do cost a lot of time. Your only way to stop them is by leaving out .text section
> and only having the .privileged section.
>
> Also, think about the malicious software we had back in the DOS times. You caught one,
> your computer or atleast your harddrive died.
>
> Another problem is the bad developer, they want to test out their application, but they
> accidentally left out something. Just thinking about myself, I made lots of stupid mistakes
> when I began development, if the CPU worked per your description, I would have bricked bunch of
> computers. The whole point of separating kernelspace from userspace is not only the abstraction
> of hardware, but the security as well. We want to protect the user from having the fear of bricking
> his or her computer.
>
> By this, I don't mean to say that your idea is bad, but right now we can't just trust userspace
> with 'God' powers.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Levente Kurusa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-12 13:41    [W:0.054 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site