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"?
-
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]
