Re: IOKit KEXT Questions
Re: IOKit KEXT Questions
- Subject: Re: IOKit KEXT Questions
- From: Ernesto Corvi <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:46:48 -0400
On Aug 16, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Amanda Walker wrote:
On Aug 16, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Ernesto Corvi wrote:
Do we *really* need to send a feature request to harden the
security on the kernel and provide a
truly authorized KPI for legitimate patches?
What is a "legitimate patch?"
Things that use kauth are a legitimate 'patches'.
KPIs like kauth let a 3rd party product interpose itself into
kernel processing at well defined spots without having to patch
it. The only reason to "patch" the kernel is to fix a bug in a
particular kernel version if Apple isn't willing to roll a fix into
the next update (which happened in Tiger once most of the engineers
were concentrating on Leopard).
You mean the only reason to patch the kernel for well-intentioned
people.
I can tell you a lot of reasons why a malware write would like to
patch the kernel.
But it's a fallback. Start by describing what you're trying to do
and ask for a KPI to do it (via bugreporter.apple.com so that it
gets tracked). Saying "I want a generic way to patch the kernel"
doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think you responded to the wrong email. Where did I say "I want a
generic way to patch the kernel"?
I actually want the opposite. I want the the kernel not to be
generically patchable, as it is right now, and be able to
have a KPI, such as kauth (although kauth is severely limited in
scope right now) where benevolent users can
actually implement the kernel hooks they need.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden