Kdump with signed images

H. Peter Anvin hpa at zytor.com
Mon Nov 5 18:01:56 EST 2012

Yes, it is unlikely you can pare thibgs down more than klibc.

Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> writes:
>> > On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:32:48PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> It needs to be checked but /sbin/kexec should not use any
>functions that
>> >> trigger nss switch.  No user or password or host name lookup
>should be
>> >> happening.
>> >
>> > I also think that we don't call routines which trigger nss switch
>> > be probably can't rely on that as somebody might introduce it in
>> > future. So we need more robust mechanism to prevent it than just
>> > inspection.
>> The fact that we shouldn't use those routines is enough to let us
>> walk down a path where they are not used.  Either with a static glibc
>> linked told to use no nss modules (--enable-static-nss ?), or with
>> another more restricted libc.
>Is there anything wrong with using uClibc? Trying to link again
>customized glibc (with --enable-static-nss) sounds just extra work for
>build environments. Are there know restricted libc or we need to create
>one with passing more compile time options to libc.
>Instead of doing more work in an attempt to create restricted libc,
>it might be easier to just link against any already available
>restricted library.

Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.

More information about the kexec mailing list