Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: secure computing for 2.6.7 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | Mon, 02 Aug 2004 02:05:20 +0200 |
| |
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@cpushare.com> writes:
> +/* > + * bump this sequence number after fixing any kernel security bug > + * that could render insecure some userspace application. This > + * way future versions of the userpace application will be able > + * to reliably make sure to run on a secure kernel. > + * I hope 31bit are enough... ;). > + */ > +static int security_sequence;
I don't think a sequence number is a good idea. Consider a vendor/third party kernel fixing a security bug, but mainline hasn't taken the patch yet for some reason.
The vendor kernel could not safely increase this number, because it could conflict with some other security bug fixed in mainline at the same time.
The end result would be that the kernel would be fixed, but the application has no way to tell.
Better may be a bitmap, but even there you still have an problem with allocating these bits.
A safe solution would be a file in /proc that lists CAN idenitifiers of fixed bugs or similar, but that may be quite some overhead to maintain and parse.
-Andi
- 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/
| |