[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140625134354.GA7892@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:43:54 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...omium.org>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] sched: move no_new_privs into new atomic flags
On 06/24, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1307,8 +1307,7 @@ struct task_struct {
> * execve */
> unsigned in_iowait:1;
>
> - /* task may not gain privileges */
> - unsigned no_new_privs:1;
> + unsigned long atomic_flags; /* Flags needing atomic access. */
>
> /* Revert to default priority/policy when forking */
> unsigned sched_reset_on_fork:1;
Agreed, personally I like it more than seccomp->flags.
But probably it would be better to place the new member before/after
other bitfields to save the space?
Oleg.
--
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