[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure



On Jul 21, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:

> > You are totally correct.
> > Kernel team, please blacklist HFS/HFS+ for automounting.
> Isn't this a userland policy decision? udisks will happily trigger a 
> module load for hfsplus if udev has identified it, and I don't think 
> there's a trivial mechanism for the kernel to disable that. I believe 
Yes, I was also thinking about this and I believe that you are right.
The kernel team did this in the past for some uncommon network 
protocols, but they could do it themselves because these modules are 
autoloaded using aliases.

Since I happen to be the kmod maintainer it looks like that solving this
is on me. :-)

Unless somebody has a better idea then then my plan is to ship in the 
next upload of kmod a file in /etc/modprobe.d/ which uses the blacklist 
directive to prevent automatically loading some file system modules.

By looking at the MAINTAINERS file I have identified these file systems 
marked as "orphan" and "odd fixes":

efs
hfs
hfaplus
qnx6
sysv

affs
ecryptfs
jffs2
jfs

And I think that I can also safely add a few more which while actively 
maintained I believe are only used in a retrocomputing context or are 
generally uncommon anyway:

befs
bfs
hpfs
omfs
qnx4
reiserfs
spu
ufs

Did i miss anything?

I think that all of these have enough of a niche usage that it would not 
be an unreasonable burden for the affected users to manually load the 
modules when needed (ad hoc or using /etc/modules-load.d/).

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: