[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210312175444.GC3103@ubuntu>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:54:44 +0100
From: John Wood <john.wood@....com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: John Wood <john.wood@....com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] Documentation: Add documentation for the Brute LSM
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:05:17PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Okay but that means that the brute force attack can just continue
> because the attacked daemon will be respawned?
>
> You need some way to stop the respawning, otherwise the
> mitigation doesn't work for daemons.
>
I will work on your solution regarding respawned daemons (use wait*() to inform
userspace that the offending processes killed by the mitigation exited due to
this mitigation -> then the supervisor can adopt their own policy).
>
> -Andi
>
Thank you very much,
John Wood
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
