[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120622152029.638ade70.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:20:29 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Joe Korty <joe.korty@...r.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fs: introduce pipe-only dump mode suid_dumpable=3
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:07:45 -0700
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> mode=2 to disk _should_ break, is my point.
And my point is that we should at least tell people that we broke it.
I don't believe that returning an EINVAL from the write() is
sufficient. Because it introduces a high risk that people will run
misconfigured systems for lengthy periods and it will cause them to
have to do a *lot* of work once they discover that their system is
misbehaving.
So if we really really must instabreak back-compatibility, we should
shout loudly into syslog about it: tell people that their system is
broken and tell them what to do about it.
And we should explain and justify this extraordinary action in the
patch changelog.
--
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