[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:44:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jeff Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/2] security, perf: allow further
restriction of perf_event_open
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:53:41AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >> Let me take this another way instead. What would be a better way to
> >> provide a mechanism for system owners to disable perf without an LSM?
> >> (Since far fewer folks run with an enforcing "big" LSM: I'm seeking as
> >> wide a coverage as possible.)
> >
> > I vote for sandboxes. Perhaps seccomp. Perhaps a per userns sysctl.
> > Perhaps something else.
>
> Peter, did you happen to see Eric's solution to this problem for
> namespaces? Basically, a per-userns sysctl instead of a global sysctl.
> Is that something that would be acceptable here?
Someone would have to educate me on what a userns is and how that would
help here.
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.
