[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070125153239.GA17904@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:32:39 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] user ns: handle file sigio
Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@...l.org):
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:58:45 -0600
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we need to I can see doing something special if the process setting
> > > fown has CAP_KILL
> >
> > Obviously CAP_KILL is insufficient :) I assume you mean a new
> > CAP_XNS_CAP_KILL?
> >
> > > and bypassing the security checks that way, but
> > > hard coding rules like that when it doesn't appear we have any
> > > experience to indicate we need the extra functionality looks
> > > premature.
> >
> > Ok, in this case actually I suspect you're right and we can just ditch
> > the exception. But in general the security discussion is one we should
> > still have.
>
> People like security.
>
> Where do we now stand with this patch, and with "[PATCH 4/8] user ns: hook permission"?
Later today I can send a patch against this set which removes the
the init_task exceptions (out of patch 3 and patch 7), but I'd prefer
to leave the MS_SHARED_NS option (patch 6) in.
thanks,
-serge
-
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