Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933229AbcK2KkR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 05:40:17 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37070 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932765AbcK2KkI (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 05:40:08 -0500 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <10164.1480378260@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <10164.1480378260@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20161116222731.563fb85e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <147933283664.19316.12454053022687659937.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <26173.1479769852@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: minyard@acm.org Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, One Thousand Gnomes , keyrings@vger.kernel.org, matthew.garrett@nebula.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lock down drivers that can have io ports, io mem, irqs and dma changed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <20241.1480416003.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:40:03 +0000 Message-ID: <20242.1480416003@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:40:06 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 618 Lines: 15 David Howells wrote: > It would have to be more like pr_err("Hard-coded device addresses, irqs and > dma channels are not permitted when the kernel is locked down."), possibly > with the addition of either "The driver has been disabled" or "These settings > have been ignored". That should be "Command line-specified" rather than "Hard-coded". The latter are actually okay. A better way to do this would probably be to annotate the module parameter declarations and have the module_param() invoker reject the locked-down parameters. I'm not sure how easy that would be to do, though. David