Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kconfig: Add kernel config option for fuzz testing. | From | Tetsuo Handa <> | Date | Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:54:40 +0900 |
| |
On 2020/01/03 4:57, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:53 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote: >> +Matthew for a lockdown question >> We are considering [ab]using lockdown (you knew this will happen!) for >> fuzzing kernel. LOCKDOWN_DEBUGFS is a no-go for us and we may want a >> few other things that may be fuzzing-specific. >> The current inflexibility comes from the global ordering of levels: >> >> if (kernel_locked_down >= level) >> if (kernel_locked_down >= what) { >> >> Is it done for performance? Or for simplicity? > > Simplicity. Based on discussion, we didn't want the lockdown LSM to > enable arbitrary combinations of lockdown primitives, both because > that would make it extremely difficult for userland developers and > because it would make it extremely easy for local admins to > accidentally configure policies that didn't achieve the desired > outcome. There's no inherent problem in adding new options, but really > right now they should fall into cases where they're protecting either > the integrity of the kernel or preventing leakage of confidential > information from the kernel. >
Can we resume this topic?
I think build-time lockdown (i.e. kernel config option) is more reliable and easier to use.
| |