[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4798E26D.6010908@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:09:33 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "Oliver Pinter (Pintér Olivér)"
<oliver.pntr@...il.com>
CC: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: Add common orderly_poweroff() to 2.6.22?
Oliver Pinter (Pintér Olivér) wrote:
> On 1/24/08, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>
>> Oliver Pinter (Pintér Olivér) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> commit in mainline 10a0a8d4e3f6bf2d077f94344441909abe670f5a is go in
>>> the satble 2.6.22
>>>
>>> the grund for this question is http://hup.hu/node/49773 .
>>>
>>>
>> Is there a compelling reason?
>>
>
> no, but in forum some person have the question, why the kernel call
> userspace program and it is secure or not...
>
Ah, my non-existent knowledge of Hungarian wasn't up to interpreting
that page ;)
It should be secure if done properly. Of course, if you set the
"poweroff" executable to something untrustworthy then you'll have a
problem, but there's no inherent security problem there. And if you
want to do an orderly shutdown, you need to have some amount of help
from the userspace side of things, and invoking a command is the normal
way to do this.
J
--
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