4 ms·

To me this article sounds more like political propaganda than talking about real issues. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't read any explanation of why the a

• Arnt 10y ago
  You didn't read, but the (original) author did write. One of the problems (already solved now) was that the kernel had unlimited access to userspace, ie. once you've found a kernel bug that permits the kernel to do something wrong involving user-supplied arguments, you could prepare data/code and then use the bug to make the kernel read or act on your prepared data. Now that most kernel code is blocked from reading most userspace, you have less ability to direct the kernel's behaviour when you want to exploit a bug. There's more. It's good stuff.
  • paulddraper 10y ago
    Eh. A compromised kernel can do all sorts of bad stuff... Which brings us bad to the question: do we have substantive reasons to think it's vulnerable?
    • Arnt 10y ago
      Yes, that's a question. We can safely assume that it's buggy, though, since most/all prior kernel versions have had bugs of one sort or another. That assumption doesn't depend on the question you raise. Given that it's buggy and that linux is widely used, we can also safely assume that someone will try to exploit the bugs, which makes it sensible to limit the likely possible consequences of bug. Or put differently, to minimise the risk that a bug is a vulnerability.