[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110907104750.GA10859@albatros>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:47:50 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: /tmp fs type
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 14:19 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:49:45PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > Maybe, but often fs type for /tmp is chosen not from security
> > considerations, but performance or robustness.
>
> Wouldn't tmpfs be the best choice under those considerations as well?
>
> OK, I imagine someone might opt to have on-disk /tmp if it needs to be
> larger than the machine's virtual memory size.
Yes. Or it is not known how much disk space it will take in the future,
so a precise allocation is not possible and an allocation with a
margin is too expensive.
> > How does the hardlink hardening protect against hardlinking into /home?
>
> By not letting a user create hard links to files that they don't have
> write permissions for.
-ow for 2.4 didn't have such protection, did it? At least I'm not aware
of it.
--
Vasiliy
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.
