Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762266AbYHESI2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:08:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758969AbYHESIT (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:08:19 -0400 Received: from smtp117.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.84.166]:37162 "HELO smtp117.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756137AbYHESIS (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:08:18 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=S8/8D5DgRcX6pKdwpIV+XaM1dtkWD78yXxc4453jZ1M7mBQGH9eFGihacwQ+JGurTvgLZU0Tc2PTz4sevXxwb+/m5ETWpqoa1/cmNiZgDjvqaf2MYG3B0koOVzhR8Oyik6JQAADLbG+LGHDhueGwI54vTO3AhJ7h42TvZIDCfLA= ; X-YMail-OSG: fzejbjQVM1mWKybmsqj5lOen47Z_MXJT2_PWfgkkLqpZYJifX8FQEMT5EB162DuIfDJu6ZQuV_QwO4.wGAOHYmq00AuzFm.K1Qbtq.9Z.FGr8A5Qo7L28zHmMZ2Az1OoBZU- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: Nick Piggin To: Eric Paris Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scanning Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 04:08:05 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: malware-list@lists.printk.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1217883616.27684.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1217883616.27684.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808060408.05272.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3350 Lines: 65 On Tuesday 05 August 2008 07:00, Eric Paris wrote: > Please contact me privately or (preferably the list) for questions, > comments, discussions, flames, names, or anything. I'll do complete > rewrites of the patches if someone tells me how they don't meet their > needs or how they can be done better. I'm here to try to bridge the > needs (and wants) of the anti-malware vendors with the technical > realities of the kernel. So everyone feel free to throw in your two > cents and I'll try to reconcile it all. These 5 patches are part 1. > They give us a working able solution. > > >From my point of view patches forthcoming and mentioned below should > > help with performance for those who actually have userspace scanners but > also could presents be implemented using this framework. > > > Background > ++++++++++ > There is a consensus in the security industry that protecting against > malicious files (viruses, root kits, spyware, ad-ware, ...) by the way > of so-called on-access scanning is usable and reasonable approach. > Currently the Linux kernel does not offer a completely suitable > interface to implement such security solutions. Present solutions > involve overwriting function pointers in the LSM, in filesystem > operations, in the sycall table, and other fragile hacks. The purpose > of this project is to create a fast, clean interface for userspace > programs to look for malware when files are accessed. This malware may > be ultimately intended for this or some other Linux machine or may be > malware intended to attack a host running a different operating system > and is merely in transit across the Linux server. Since there are > almost an infinite number of ways in which information can enter and > exit a server it is not seen as reasonable to move these checks to all > the applications at the boundary (MTA, NFS, CIFS, SSH, rsync, et al.) to > look for such malware on at the border. > > For this Linux kernel interface speed is of particular interest for > those who have it compiled into the kernel but have no userspace client. > There must be no measurable performance hit to just compiling this into > the kernel. > > Security vendors, Linux distributors and other interested parties have > come together on the malware-list mailing list to discuss this problem > and see if they can work together to propose a solution. During these > talks couple of requirement sets were posted with the aim of fleshing > out common needs as a prerequisite of creating an interface prototype. > > Collated requirements > +++++++++++++++++++++ I suspect that what people actually want is a requirement of what it is they are trying to do. Not a list of demands on the kernel that they think are needed to implement what they think is the right way to solve some problem that they define. > 5. Define which filesystems are cacheable and which are not This is practically impossible to do completely without rewriting a lot of code (which will never be accepted). I don't see why it is needed though as the filesystem cache is supposed to be kept coherent with disk. -- 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/