[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100617233406.1de4e132@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:34:06 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: allow restriction of ptrace scope
> I don't mind putting them in commoncap at all. I would just like people
> to agree on what they disagree about. :)
I don't believe they belong in commoncap, but as something which can sit
on top of commoncap and then be dropped into by the security modules that
makes total sense.
(Really thats just the stacking debate and how to dodge it ;))
Ie you'd have
optionally:
LSMs
optionally:
cap_switches
required:
commoncap
--
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