linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] add mount options to sysfs

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

Message-ID: <20110520133615.GB8112@albatros>
Date:	Fri, 20 May 2011 17:36:15 +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 17:34 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 06:30 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > 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?

Err... sorry, s/would break/would it break/


-- 
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/