[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9hYAnU+3GuXG_G+ywm=vAFgYtE0qHBgHzrNUqR27NgDk=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:52:59 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
john.johansen@...onical.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pmoore@...hat.com, eparis@...hat.com,
djm@...drot.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
segoon@...nwall.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
scarybeasts@...il.com, avi@...hat.com, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, luto@....edu, mingo@...e.hu,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, khilman@...com, borislav.petkov@....com,
amwang@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, gregkh@...e.de, dhowells@...hat.com,
daniel.lezcano@...e.fr, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, olofj@...omium.org,
mhalcrow@...gle.com, dlaor@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using BPF
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> more about). Since setuid is privilege escalation, then perhaps it
>> makes sense to allow it as an escape hatch.
>>
>> Would it be sane to just disallow setuid exec exclusively?
>
> I think that is a policy question. I can imagine cases where either
> behaviour is the "right" one so it may need to be a parameter ?
Makes sense. I'll make it flaggable (ignoring the parallel conversation
about having a thread-wide suidable bit).
thanks!
--
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