[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111123162417.GE25780@google.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:24:17 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@...esourcery.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] fork: Add the ability to create tasks with
given pids
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 04:20:44PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Would CAP_CHECKPOINT be a shame too?
>
> I think CAP_CHECKPOINT (or something through some LSM) would be
> definitely better.
>
> > I'm reluctant about priviledge
> > through fd inheritance mostly because of its unusualness. I don't
> > think priv management is a good problem space for small creative
> > solutions. We're much better off with mundane mechanisms which people
> > are already familiar with and is easy to account for.
>
> fd inheritance wouldn't work for gdb; a user spawned gdb
> wouldn't inherit an open fd to kernel.ns_last_pid from anywhere.
I see. So, let's do it for root for now and later add finer grained
CAP as necessary/viable. Pavel, what do you think?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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