[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFJ0LnHHCxza7DZBWax3XuO1QH+YQCzBWecA2s2QaM9PCq_Ciw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:20:38 -0700
From: Nick Kralevich <nnk@...gle.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.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>,
Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@...gle.com>,
Elliott Hughes <enh@...gle.com>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
SELinux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 v2] proc: Relax /proc/<tid>/timerslack_ns
capability requirements
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:03 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nick Kralevich <nnk@...gle.com> wrote:
>> This should also have a similar LSM check for reads. For the SELinux
>> implementation, this can map to the PROCESS__GETSCHED permission.
>
> Ok. I'll wire that in as well.
>
> Would adding both selinux_task_get and set methods in the same patch
> be ok? Or would folks prefer they be split into two?
I would prefer 1 patch.
--
Nick Kralevich | Android Security | nnk@...gle.com | 650.214.4037
Powered by blists - more mailing lists