Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:27:50 -0800
From: Greg KH <>
To: Alan Cox <>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <>,
	Eric Paris <>,,,, Alexey Dobriyan <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to

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.