Re: Binary only module overview

Previous message: richard offer: "Re: GPL only usage of security.h"
In reply to: Seth Arnold: "Re: Binary only module overview"
Next in thread: Crispin Cowan: "Re: Binary only module overview"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

gregat_private

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:09:28PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 05:16:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> Straying offtopic here...
> 
> grep permission /proc/ksyms # and make note of the address
> open("/dev/kmem");
> llseek(/* address from above */);
> write(/* new permission code */);
> 
> Of course, if one's permission code is longer than the original
> permission code, one must make the 'new permission code' a simple jump
> to the location of the real new permission code -- which can be found at
> module load time.
> 
> Repeat for all kernel symbols exported through /proc/ksyms.
> 
> Right? And this is perfectly legal under the GPL, because it is
> exploiting the user interfaces of syscalls (and I'm hoping /proc/ and
> sysctl are included in the GPL-exempt list :) .

Binary patching of a GPL binary is still infringing (think linking and
the interfaces your new code is now using.)  Talk to an IP lawyer for
more info on that.

But this is getting OT :)

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module