Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754134AbYHRQ2g (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:28:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751907AbYHRQ21 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:28:27 -0400 Received: from pmx1.sophos.com ([213.31.172.16]:40802 "EHLO pmx1.sophos.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751418AbYHRQ20 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:28:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080818142511.GC8184@mit.edu> To: Theodore Tso Cc: linux-kernel , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, malware-list@lists.printk.net Subject: Re: [malware-list] scanner interface proposal was: [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scanning MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0.2 September 26, 2006 From: douglas.leeder@sophos.com Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:28:32 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mercury/Servers/Sophos(Release 7.0.3|September 26, 2007) at 18/08/2008 17:27:29, Serialize complete at 18/08/2008 17:27:29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <20080818162830.F0BAA3F608F@pmx1.sophos.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1946 Lines: 54 malware-list-bounces@dmesg.printk.net wrote on 2008-08-18 15:25:11: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 02:15:24PM +0100, tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com wrote: > > Then there is still a question of who allows some binary to declare itself > > exempt. If that decision was a mistake, or it gets compromised security > > will be off. A very powerful mechanism which must not be easily > > accessible. With a good cache your worries go away even without a scheme > > like this. > > I have one word for you --- bittorrent. If you are downloading a very > large torrent (say approximately a gigabyte), and it contains many > pdf's that are say a few megabytes a piece, and things are coming in > tribbles, having either a indexing scanner or an AV scanner wake up > and rescan the file from scratch each time a tiny piece of the pdf > comes in is going to eat your machine alive.... What size is a tribble? :-) If we assume that the bittorrent client is closing and re-openning the file each time it's got a nice piece of the file? (Otherwise I don't think we'll have a performance problem) Then there maybe room for a optimisation of the following form: For a file X. If X is only a local disk. If X was written from empty by process A and only process A. Then don't scan attempts to open by process A. But that sort of optimisation can either be done in user-space, or in a future kernel modification. I haven't fully analysed this - it assumes that reading data into process A, that process A wrote out is safe, regardless of the data. -- Douglas Leeder Sophos Plc, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, United Kingdom. Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 348 3873 20. -- 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/