[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikP5MpT6-WBBfNsP2nK1Cdh=St+nWky_bU9FhSO@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:04:47 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: david@...g.hm
Cc: Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>,
Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, w@....eu,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: make /proc/kallsyms mode 400 to reduce ease of attacking
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:58 AM, <david@...g.hm> wrote:
>
> how far back do we need to maintain compatibility with userspace?
>
> Is this something that we can revisit in a few years and lock it down then?
The rule is basically "we never break user space".
But the "out" to that rule is that "if nobody notices, it's not
broken". In a few years? Who knows?
So breaking user space is a bit like trees falling in the forest. If
there's nobody around to see it, did it really break?
Linus
--
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