From: David Wagner <daw <at> cs.berkeley.edu>
Subject:
David Wagner wrote:
...snip...
I still think that ptrace() is not the best way to implement this kind
of security tool, and I think it's entirely understandable that they did
not use ptrace. I do not think it is a fair criticism of AppArmor to say
"AppArmor should have used ptrace()".
Take a look at utrace in -mm, it offers a completely backwards compatible
ptrace() syscall implemented as a module ontop of it. utrace looks like the
way things will be going forward
http://people.redhat.com/roland/utrace/2.6-current/0-intro.txt
Think of ptrace() implemented using utrace as ptrace that "Sucks Less TM".
Maybe Andy will let utrace out of -mm for 2.6.23.
(please cc: me in any responses)
--
Jeff Schroeder
Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix.
-
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]
