[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091227121849.GY18217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:18:49 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: pavel@....cz, michael@...top.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, david@...g.hm, socketcan@...tkopp.net,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, bdonlan@...il.com, zbr@...emap.net,
cscott@...ott.net, jmorris@...ei.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
bernie@...ewiz.org, mrs@...hic-beasts.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, sam@...ack.fr, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
serue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4)
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 08:49:17PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> We can determine what syscalls we need from application's code and libc's code,
> can't we?
_Which_ libc? And no, I'm not talking about other implementations; even
glibc is more than enough. It changes and it *does* change the set of
syscalls used to implement given function.
I'm not disagreeing about what's seccomp worth, BTW.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists