On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:I don't think the attack scenario was satisfactory explained.
02.09.2015 23:55, Andy Lutomirski ÐÐÑÐÑ:For the 99%+ of users who don't use dosemu, it prevents exploits that
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:Sorry, I don't understand this sysctl proposal.
02.09.2015 23:22, Josh Boyer ÐÐÑÐÑ:How about CONFIG_SYSCTL_VM86_DEFAULT which defaults to Y? Fedora
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:What you said was:
02.09.2015 20:46, Josh Boyer ÐÐÑÐÑ:I didn't say that.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>The fact that fedora doesn't package dosemu, doesn't automatically
I'd be amenable to switching the default back to y and perhaps addingCan you please leave the default as N, and have a sysctl option to
a sysctl to make the distros more comfortable. Ingo, Kees, Brian,
what do you think?
enable it instead? While dosemu might still be in use, it isn't going
to be the common case at all. So from a distro perspective, I think
we'd probably rather have the default match the common case.
mean all other distros do not too. Since when kernel defaults should
match the ones of fedora?
While dosemu might still be in use, it isn't going
to be the common case at all. So from a distro perspective
... which is likely true only in fedora circe.
The default right now is N.In a not yet released kernel, unless I am mistaken.
If fedora already provides that kernel, other distros likely not.
I asked it be leftLets assume its not yet N, unless there was a kernel release already.
that way. That's all.
Its easy to get back if its not too late.
could set it to N.
Could you please educate me what is it all about?
This sysctl will disable or enable the vm86() syscall at run-time,
right? What does it give us? If you disable something in the
config, this gives you, say, smaller kernel image. If OTOH you
add the run-time switch, it gives you a bigger image, regardless
of its default value.
I might be missing something, but I don't understand what
problem will this solve? Have I missed some earlier message
in this thread?
target vm86 from attacking their kernel.