LWN.net Logo

Reactive vs. pro-active kernel security

Reactive vs. pro-active kernel security

Posted Jul 15, 2011 5:53 UTC (Fri) by naptastic (subscriber, #60139)
In reply to: Reactive vs. pro-active kernel security by dlang
Parent article: Reactive vs. pro-active kernel security

Sorry; I thought one of the points of the article is that some pro-active security measures (I think of them as prophylactic or preventative) are unpalatable to kernel developers, but would remove avenues for abuse by buggy user-space programs; removing symlinks in sticky directories is one example.

I understand and agree with the rejection of these kinds of patches: it's not the kernel's job to fix user-space bugs. But as an option, under debugging or something, could it at least warn, "Hey, app developer, you've left a potential security hole"?

Maybe there's a better way to do this?


(Log in to post comments)

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds