[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: stop breaking dosemu (Re: x86/kconfig/32: Rename CONFIG_VM86 and default it to 'n')
On 2015-09-02 17:12, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> 02.09.2015 23:55, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Stas Sergeev <> wrote:
>>> 02.09.2015 23:22, Josh Boyer пишет:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Stas Sergeev <> wrote:
>>>>> 02.09.2015 20:46, Josh Boyer пишет:
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Andy Lutomirski
>>>>>> <>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'd be amenable to switching the default back to y and perhaps
>>>>>>> adding
>>>>>>> a sysctl to make the distros more comfortable. Ingo, Kees, Brian,
>>>>>>> what do you think?
>>>>>> Can you please leave the default as N, and have a sysctl option to
>>>>>> enable it instead? While dosemu might still be in use, it isn't
>>>>>> going
>>>>>> to be the common case at all. So from a distro perspective, I think
>>>>>> we'd probably rather have the default match the common case.
>>>>> The fact that fedora doesn't package dosemu, doesn't automatically
>>>>> mean all other distros do not too. Since when kernel defaults should
>>>>> match the ones of fedora?
>>>> I didn't say that.
>>> What you said was:
>>> ---
>>> While dosemu might still be in use, it isn't going
>>> to be the common case at all. So from a distro perspective
>>> ---
>>> ... which is likely true only in fedora circe.
>>>> The default right now is N.
>>> In a not yet released kernel, unless I am mistaken.
>>> If fedora already provides that kernel, other distros likely not.
>>>> I asked it be left
>>>> that way. That's all.
>>> Lets assume its not yet N, unless there was a kernel release already.
>>> Its easy to get back if its not too late.
>> How about CONFIG_SYSCTL_VM86_DEFAULT which defaults to Y? Fedora
>> could set it to N.
> Sorry, I don't understand this sysctl proposal.
> Could you please educate me what is it all about?
> This sysctl will disable or enable the vm86() syscall at run-time,
> right? What does it give us? If you disable something in the
> config, this gives you, say, smaller kernel image. If OTOH you
> add the run-time switch, it gives you a bigger image, regardless
> of its default value.
> I might be missing something, but I don't understand what
> problem will this solve? Have I missed some earlier message
> in this thread?
The problem this solves is not kernel size, that is not the only reason
for wanting to disable a system call. In this case, it's a system call
that is unused by all but a very few programs, which are in turn used by
a small percentage of users, and said system call does quite a few
things that are potentially very dangerous. Disabling it reduces the
attack surface of the system.

[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-03 14:21    [W:0.087 / U:7.436 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site