[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110520133451.GA8112@albatros>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:34:51 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>,
Eugene Teo <eugeneteo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] add mount options to sysfs
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 06:30 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > Here https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/25/300 you, not aware of usefull
> > > > applications of world-writable debugfs file, agreeded to statically
> > > > restrict permissions of all files. I suggest more flexible and
> > > > configurable in runtime solution. It doesn't break anything - default
> > > > behaviour doesn't differ from current one. What has changed in your
> > > > mind since 2/25?
> > >
> > > That's debugfs, not sysfs, which we are talking about here, right?
> >
> > Correct. So, if I understood you, you are OK with adding mount options
> > for debugfs, but not sysfs, right? What is the difference between them
> > in sense of permissions?
>
> debugfs is "there are no rules", so changing the permissions on it
> shouldn't break anything as no userspace tools "should" rely on it. Now
> that really isn't true (see the perf stuff), but overall it is, so I
> don't worry about changing things there as much as sysfs, which has
> hundreds of tools relying on it.
What would break if the default behaviour is not changed?
Thanks,
--
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
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