[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGTjWtBUavDUMFoFAFGrUQ700U7YDUBQL_w5rezOsLhp3fjGzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:42:01 -0700
From: Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
To: "Andrew G. Morgan" <agm@...gle.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Klibc mailing list <klibc@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys_ioperm
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Andrew G. Morgan <agm@...gle.com> wrote:
> I'd put it in kinit too.
>
> I think you may have to think about the call_usermodehelper code, and
> you might want to look at dropping CAP_SYS_MODULE too.
Looks like usermodehelpers are configurable for both the inheritable
set and the bounding set via /proc/sys/kernel/usermodehelper/bset and
/proc/sys/kernel/usermodehelper/inheritable thanks to Eric Paris
(17f60a7da, available in 3.0-rc1).
>
> Cheers
>
> Andrew
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 07/15/2011 11:13 AM, Mike Waychison wrote:
>>>
>>> So the question is, should this go in the kernel proper such that it
>>> manipulates the init_cred structure, or should this be plumbed down in
>>> kinit (in klibc, which we use for bootup)?
>>>
>>
>> It certainly would be trivial to do in kinit.
>>
>> -hpa
>>
>> --
>> H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
>> I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
>>
>>
>
--
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