[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <p73hctqggfz.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Date: 13 Feb 2007 17:39:28 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] ANNOUNCE: "Syslets", generic asynchronous system call support
Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
Funny, it sounds like batch() on stereoids @) Ok with an async context it becomes
somewhat more interesting.
> sys_setuid/gid/etc need to be synchronous only and not occur
> while other async syscalls are running in parallel to meet current kernel
> assumptions.
>
> sys_exec and other security boundaries must be synchronous only
> and not allow async "spill over" (consider setuid async binary patching)
He probably would need some generalization of Andrea's seccomp work.
Perhaps using bitmaps? For paranoia I would suggest to white list, not black list
calls.
-Andi
-
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