|
Message-ID: <4EB83674.3040207@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:50:12 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org> CC: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, 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, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to /proc/interrupts On 11/07/2011 11:48 AM, Eric Paris wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:18 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> As to procfs, I see no real need of adding mode/group mount option for >> global procfs files (/proc/interrupts, /proc/stat, etc.) - it can be >> done by distro specific init scripts (chown+chmod). I don't mind >> against such an option for the convenience, though. > > While possible, the chmod+chown 'solutions' just aren't as simple as > you pretend. Every time one creates a chroot environment and mounts > /proc it has be manually fixed there as well. Same thing with a > container. Sure if /proc were something that was only ever mounted > one time on a box it wouldn't be so bad, but that's not the case..... Yes, for a filesystem that dynamically creates nodes, a static script just doesn't work well. Control options do, like we have for devpts for example. -hpa
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.