[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLUGD6TMK6Tx4PfZLGMxw7AAOQna-Z=5_9jTeL1bWNQiXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:53:43 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Oren Laadan <orenl@...lrox.com>,
Ruchi Kandoi <kandoiruchi@...gle.com>,
Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...roid.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Nick Kralevich <nnk@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@...gle.com>,
Elliott Hughes <enh@...gle.com>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] proc: Relax /proc/<tid>/timerslack_ns capability requirements
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> For ABI preservation, it still allows CAP_SYS_PTRACE tasks to
>> access/modify timerslack values, but I'm fine with removing
>> this if others agree.
>
> Is anything actually using this ABI yet? (Regardless, I'm fine
> allowing both caps.)
Not that I'm aware of... but there may be someone somewhere.
Given it landed in 4.6, I suspect its fairly safe to remove.
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists