kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH] move RLIMIT_NPROC check from set_user() to do_execve

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E1E46CA.9030007@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:30:50 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: jmorris@...ei.org
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, neilb@...e.de, solar@...nwall.com, 
 segoon@...nwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...e.de, 
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net, 
 kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, jslaby@...e.cz, 
 viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
 eparis@...hat.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move RLIMIT_NPROC check from set_user() to do_execve_common()

(2011/07/14 9:11), James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>> It sounds like people are effectively Ack'ing the patch, but with this
>> kind of patch I don't want to add the "implicit Ack" that I often do
>> for regular stuff.
>>
>> So could people who think that the patch is ok in its current form
>> just send me their acked-by or reviewed-by? I haven't heard any actual
>> objection to it, and I think it's valid for the current -rc.
>>
>> Alternatively, feel free to send a comment like "I think it's the
>> right thing, but maybe it should wait for the next merge window"..
> 
> Count me in the latter.
> 
> It does look ok to me, but I'd be happier if it had more testing first (in 
> -mm perhaps).  I think some security folk may be on summer vacation, too.

I don't think I am best person to take ack. but I also don't want to hesitate
to help Solar's good improvemnt.
	Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>

And I'll second James. next mere window is probably safer.

Thanks.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.