[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:13:51 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: restrict pid namespaces to 32 or 64 bit syscalls
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> So how do we proceed from here? Start by getting Will's patch applied?
How to move forward with Will's patch is supposed to be discussed at
the invite only kernel summit October 23 - 25, 2011. As one of the
many people who have written a replacement for seccomp I wished I had
been invited to participate, but was not. Will is in a hard place
because Ingo insists he take his patch in one direction while tglx and
Steven Rostedt have both explicitly NAKd such a direction. Hopefully
when those 3 sit down in person a solution can be found and we can get
some traction on a useful seccomp interface, but it's still a while
out....
-Eric
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.
