[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:27:50 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
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
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to
/proc/interrupts
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.
