[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWRHRVLotFs=Cpdr=7KjE7q52NdT62GxZg=xjv+LFZBqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 15:55:24 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Aaron Jones <aaronmdjones@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Markku Savela <msa@...h.iki.fi>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] capabilities: Ambient capabilities
It occurs to me that my previous reply was unnecessarily long and
missed the point. Trying again:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andrew G. Morgan <morgan@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Andrew G. Morgan <morgan@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> My Nack remains that you are eliminating the explicit enforcement of
>>> selective inheritance. A lockable secure bit protecting access to your
>>> prctl() function would address this concern.
>>
>> Would a sysctl or securebit that *optionally* allows pA to be disabled
>> satisfy you?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It would be kind of nice to remove your nack. I think that the above
is the relevant question. Could you answer it?
--Andy
--
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