From: Stefan Bavendiek <stefan.bavendiek@mailbox.org>
To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Reducing runtime complexity
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 21:09:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y4kJ4Hw0DVfy7S37@mailbox.org> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1132 bytes --]
Some time ago I wrote a thesis about complexity in the Linux kernel and how to reduce it in order to limit the attack surface[1].
While the results are unlikely to bring news to the audience here, it did indicate some possible ways to avoid exposing optional kernel features when they are not needed.
The basic idea would be to either build or configure parts of the kernel after or during the installation on a specific host.
Distributions are commonly shipping the kernel as one large binary that includes support for nearly every hardware driver and optional feature, but the end user will normally use very little of this.
In comparison, a custom kernel build for a particular device and use case, would be significantly smaller. While the reduced complexity won't be directly linked with reduction in attack surface, from my understanding the difference would make a relevant impact.
The question I keep wondering about is how feasible this is for general purpose distributions to have the kernel "rebuild" in this way when it is installed on a particular machine.
- Stefan
[1] https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29943.70561
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2022-12-01 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-01 20:09 Stefan Bavendiek [this message]
2022-12-01 21:14 ` Reducing runtime complexity Pawan Gupta
2022-12-01 23:21 ` Kees Cook
2022-12-02 6:31 ` Stefan Bavendiek
2022-12-02 20:13 ` Kees Cook
2022-12-03 8:51 ` Stefan Bavendiek
2022-12-06 2:20 ` Luis Chamberlain
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y4kJ4Hw0DVfy7S37@mailbox.org \
--to=stefan.bavendiek@mailbox.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).