[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110620142555.GA31234@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:25:55 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5 v4] procfs: add hidepid= and gid= mount options
Vasiliy,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 06:19:51PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 18:11 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 04:58:10PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > gid= is bad choice because
> > > a) e. g. VFAT uses uid=/gid= mount options to make all inodes to have
> > > certain uid/gid
> > > b) uid=/gid=, IIRC, will be added as generic VFS mount options (like ro)
> > > with semantics described in a)
> > >
> > > so having different semantics for /proc won't be good.
> >
> > I lost track of your proposals/patches. Aren't you currently proposing
> > that gid= would make all inodes have the specified gid? If not, why
> > not? Such semantics sound fine to me. That's what gid= does on procfs
> > on Linux 2.4.x-ow.
>
> With taskstats and similar mechanisms IMO it's better to use sysctls
> instead of procfs mount options as it would influence not only on procfs
> files.
OK, but why did we receive a comment about the gid= mount option then
(quote above)? Are you still proposing it or not anymore? Is the
question "outdated" (resulting from your earlier proposal, not the
latest one)?
Thanks,
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
