Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932408Ab2JBVlG (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:41:06 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:37000 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932356Ab2JBVlD (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:41:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20120820180037.GV4232@outflux.net> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 23:41:02 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] hardening: add PROT_FINAL prot flag to mmap/mprotect From: Ard Biesheuvel To: Kees Cook Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1129 Lines: 33 2012/10/2 Kees Cook : >> If desired, additional restrictions can be imposed by using the >> security framework, e.g,, disallow non-final r-x mappings. > > Interesting; what kind of interface did you have in mind? > The 'interface' we use is a LSM .ko which registers handlers for mmap() and mprotect() that fail the respective invocations if the passed arguments do not adhere to the policy. >>> It seems like there needs to be a sensible way to detect that this flag is >>> available, though. >> >> I am open for suggestions to address this. Our particular >> implementation of the loader (on an embedded system) tries to set it >> on the first mmap invocation, and stops trying if it fails. Not the >> most elegant approach, I know ... > > Actually, that seems easiest. > > Has there been any more progress on this patch over-all? > No progress. -- Ard. -- 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/