Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Preserve iopl on fork and execve

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  - Nothing actually broke that people cared about in the last 2.5
>    years, thus this might be one of the (very very rare) cases where
>    preserving a breakage is the right thing to do.


>  - These syscalls are rarely used, and we could as well insist that
>    every new context should have the permissions to (re-)acquire them
>    and should actively seek them - instead of inheriting it to shells
>    via system(), etc. The best strategy with dangerous APIs is to make
>    it really, really explicit when they are used.

since nothing really broke and its a "nasty either way" regression
wise, picking the more secure path looks the most sane.

the most likely impact path is in the X world, where X normally gets
iopl type permissions (even thought it doesn't need
them anymore nowadays).. reverting this behavior would give all the
processes X spawns off those perms as well...

also the interesting question is:
can a process give up these perms?
otherwise it becomes a "once given, never gotten rid of" hell hole.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/