* Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > I see 0 up-sides of this approach and, as per the above, a whole bunch of
> > very
> > serious downsides.
> >
> > A global (esp. default inhibited) knob is too coarse and limiting.
>
> I haven't suggested it be default inhibit in the upstream Kconfig. And
> having this knob already with the 0, 1, and 2 settings seems
> incomplete to me without this highest level of restriction that 3
> would provide. That seems rather arbitrary to me. :)
The default has no impact on the "it's too coarse and limiting" negative
property
of this patch, which is the show-stopper aspect. Please fix that aspect instead
of
trying to argue around it.
This isn't some narrow debugging mechanism we can turn on/off globally and
forget
about, this is a wide scope performance measurement and event logging
infrastructure that is being utilized not just by developers but by apps and
runtimes as well.
> Let me take this another way instead. What would be a better way to provide a
> mechanism for system owners to disable perf without an LSM? (Since far fewer
> folks run with an enforcing "big" LSM: I'm seeking as wide a coverage as
> possible.)
Because in practice what will happen is that if the only option is to do
something
drastic for sekjurity, IT departments will do it - while if there's a more
flexible mechanism that does not throw out the baby with the bath water that is
going to be used.
This is as if 20 years ago you had submitted a patch to the early Linux TCP/IP
networking code to be on/off via a global sysctl switch and told people that
"in developer mode you can have networking, talk to your admin".
We'd have told you: "this switch is too coarse and limiting, please implement
something better, like a list of routes which defines which IP ranges are
accessible, and a privileged range of listen sockets ports and some flexible
kernel side filtering mechanism to inhibit outgoing/incoming connections".
Global sysctls are way too coarse.
Thanks,
Ingo
