[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:58:16 -0400
From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I.e. capabilities ;)
>>
>> Circles. All I see here are circles.
>>
>> Having lived an entire release with a capabilities based mechanism for
>> this in Fedora, please no.
>>
>> And if you are talking about non-POSIX capabilities as you mentioned
>> earlier, that seems to be no different than having securelevel being a
>> bitmask of, well, levels. I don't have much opinion on securelevel
>> being a big hammer or a bitmask of finer grained things, but I do
>> think it's a more manageable way forward. Calling the implementation
>> "capabilities" seems to just be unnecessarily confusing.
>>
>
> This is the term "capability" in the general sense, not the POSIX
> implementation thereof.
See the whole last paragraph. Particularly the last sentence.
josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists