| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110520135424.GA10878@suse.de> Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 06:54:24 -0700 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> 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 05:36:15PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote: > 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/ That's the question for you, we would be changing the kernel/user api here, and odds are, something will break. thansk, greg k-h -- 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