Quoting Andrew Morton ([email protected]):
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:58:45 -0600
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > If we need to I can see doing something special if the process setting
> > > fown has CAP_KILL
> >
> > Obviously CAP_KILL is insufficient :) I assume you mean a new
> > CAP_XNS_CAP_KILL?
> >
> > > and bypassing the security checks that way, but
> > > hard coding rules like that when it doesn't appear we have any
> > > experience to indicate we need the extra functionality looks
> > > premature.
> >
> > Ok, in this case actually I suspect you're right and we can just ditch
> > the exception. But in general the security discussion is one we should
> > still have.
>
> People like security.
>
> Where do we now stand with this patch, and with "[PATCH 4/8] user ns: hook permission"?
Later today I can send a patch against this set which removes the
the init_task exceptions (out of patch 3 and patch 7), but I'd prefer
to leave the MS_SHARED_NS option (patch 6) in.
thanks,
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
