linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add in_execve flag into task

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0902121504130.18145@tundra.namei.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:08:50 +1100 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.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.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, David Howells wrote:

> 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().

Agreed.  It's somewhat less than perfect, but I don't see a better 
alternative.


- 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/