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: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1107141009510.17067@tundra.namei.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:11:57 +1000 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>,
        Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move RLIMIT_NPROC check from set_user() to
 do_execve_common()

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.


- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>

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