[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:50:12 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
CC: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, 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,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to /proc/interrupts
On 11/07/2011 11:48 AM, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:18 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> As to procfs, I see no real need of adding mode/group mount option for
>> global procfs files (/proc/interrupts, /proc/stat, etc.) - it can be
>> done by distro specific init scripts (chown+chmod). I don't mind
>> against such an option for the convenience, though.
>
> While possible, the chmod+chown 'solutions' just aren't as simple as
> you pretend. Every time one creates a chroot environment and mounts
> /proc it has be manually fixed there as well. Same thing with a
> container. Sure if /proc were something that was only ever mounted
> one time on a box it wouldn't be so bad, but that's not the case.....
Yes, for a filesystem that dynamically creates nodes, a static script
just doesn't work well. Control options do, like we have for devpts for
example.
-hpa
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.
