[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110715053505.GA24870@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:35:05 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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>,
Sebastian Krahmer <krahmer@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move RLIMIT_NPROC check from set_user() to do_execve_common()
Hi Neil,
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:30:13PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
(...)
> But what do you think of this. It sure that only the process which ignored
> the return value from setuid is inconvenienced.
(...)
I think this is a smart idea. But will the flag be inherited by children
over a fork() ? If not, we might as well block fork(), because we can
expect a lot of fork+exec situations which are as dangerous as the simple
execve().
Regards,
Willy
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.
