User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

per-process securebits

From:  Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:  "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@kernel.org>
Subject:  Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits
Date:  Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:18:12 -0800
Message-ID:  <20080202221812.2f9d70a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:  Linux Security Modules List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
Archive-link:  Article

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:01:51 -0800 "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@kernel.org> wrote:

> Here is the very very long version (which took some time to write, and I
> thought was a bit much to spam these lists with):
> 
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~morgan/sendmail-capabilities-w...

Thanks.  Imagine not testing the retrn value from something like setuid().
Oh well.  The reasoning for disabling it was good.

So how do we ever get to the stage where we can recommend that distributors
turn these things on, and have them agree with us?

Do we have sufficiently stern things in place to prevent them from turning
it on by accident?  Some of them are pretty gung-ho.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds