On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 17:28 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 17:16 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:00:51PM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> > > This should be an unsigned long.
> > >
> > > I wonder if the default should be for this value to be zero (i.e. preserve
> > > existing behavior). It could break binaries, albeit potentially insecure
> >
> > Agreed - DOSemu type apps and lrmi need to map at zero for vm86
>
> While I understand, there are a few users who will have problems with
> this default are we really better to not provide this defense in depth
> for the majority of users and let those with problems turn it off rather
> than provide no defense by default? I could even provide a different
> default for SELinux and non-SELinux if anyone saw value in that? But if
> others think that off default is best I'll send another patch shortly
> with the unsigned long fix and the default set to 0. My hope is then
> that distros will figure out to turn this on.
I'd be ok with having a different default for SELinux vs. non-SELinux,
i.e. no restrictions by default under dummy/capability, but restrict it
by default to 64k if selinux is enabled. Then we can use policy to
grant it as needed to the specific programs.
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
-
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]
