[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2690.1233841235@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:40:35 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
sds@...ho.nsa.gov, spotter@...columbia.edu,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add in_execve flag into task_struct.
Serge E. Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
> It's ugly, you can't get me to say it isn't ugly :), and it sets a scary
> bad precedent. But if David insists (in a reply to this msg) that this
> flag really is tops, then just ignore me. Anyway my point wasn't to
> block the patch but to raise discussion (so someone else could decide to
> block it :) on both the flag and security implications of these
> semantics.
I think it's probably the best way to support Tomoyo's security model without
reworking a chunk of execve().
David
--
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