linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Xine.LNX.4.64.0802011941140.16283@us.intercode.com.au>
Date:	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:07:01 +1100 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>,
	Linux Security Modules List 
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Really?  I'd feel a lot more comfortable if yesterday's version 1 had led
> to a stream of comments from suitably-knowledgeable kernel developers which
> indicated that those developers had scrutinised this code from every
> conceivable angle and had declared themselves 100% happy with it.

FWIW, I've reviewed the patch in detail a couple of times, and don't see 
any issues with it that haven't already been raised by Serge.

You can add my reviewed-by.

I think it does need more eyes, and some time baking in -mm.  

File capabilities are at least marked experimental, although it's not 
clear what the criteria would be to unmark them.


- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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/