Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
and... more imporantly, a *read only* file.
Who needs /dev/kmem?
Posted Aug 18, 2005 13:37 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Basically it should be a kernel debugging option, and thus off for the vast majority of systems.
Posted Aug 19, 2005 0:21 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
In Linux, we stress serving a diverse audience, so we don't ask "why should we keep this feature?" We ask, "why shouldn't we?" Things get dropped because no one is maintaining them, but not because no one is using them.
Posted Aug 19, 2005 7:50 UTC (Fri) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998)
Posted Aug 19, 2005 16:15 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
If no one is using something, there's no point in it being maintained
I agree with that, but don't find it relevant here. I.e. it's not relevant whether there's a point to maintaining something; what is relevant is what I said above: whether someone is maintaining it.
if the main users of a feature are rootkits, then it's a disadvantage to have it around at all.
The basic idea I oppose is fighting black hats by withholding tools they could use from the public. Aside from a basic uneasiness about withholding anything from the public, I also believe it has no significant effect, because if /dev/kmem isn't there already, the cracker will just bring his own. That's what rootkits are all about, after all. In any sensible security system, if a cracker has privilege to read and write /dev/kmem, then he also has privilege to load his own device driver.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds