|
Message-ID: <20111107232750.GA4854@kroah.com> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:27:50 -0800 From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to /proc/interrupts On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:21:32PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > It's better than nothing, but it really isn't wonderful - because it's > > really not just about audio. And revoke doesn't work universally. > > BSD invented revoke but never implemented it universally. It turns out > that this isn't a big problem. Right now we basically only have revoke > for tty devices but we don't need it for that much more. Revoke on disk > files and the like has simply never happened because its not a matter of > revoke being universal so much as universal revoke being universally > pointless. I looked into implementing revoke() a while ago, and looked at how BSD did it. They really only implemented it for a very narrow range of devices (tty only I think), which is not what we really want. I thought people wanted it for all char and block devices, if this isn't so, then it might be easier to implement than I thought. So, what do we really need revoke() for these days? But that's getting away from the original topic here, sorry... greg k-h
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.