Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Aug 2016 18:09:44 +0100 | From | Mark Rutland <> | Subject | Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 1/2] security, perf: allow further restriction of perf_event_open |
| |
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 12:32:32PM -0400, Daniel Micay wrote: > On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 17:10 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > I wasn't talking specifically about perf.
Then this is irrelevant to a discussion about limiting access to the perf interface.
Hardening drivers in general is a very interesting topic, but it is a different topic.
> > But please, let's frame the argument to match reality. > > The argument is framed in reality. Stating that it now often takes a > few hours to find a vulnerability with the unaltered, widely known > public perf fuzzer is not impressive. It's really an argument for > claiming that it's a significant security issue.
My claim was not that the mainline code was impressively perfect, but rather that the vendor code was worse, countering a prior claim otherwise. Hence, reality.
There is cetainly much that can be done to improve things, if we discuss that which is actually applicable.
Thanks, Mark.
| |