Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:49:28 +0000
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <>,
	Kees Cook <>,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make Yama pid_ns aware

Quoting Vasiliy Kulikov (
> Actually, what concerns me is not ptrace, but symlink/hardling
> protection.  There is no interaction between namespaces in case of
> containers via symlinks in the basic case.  In case of ptrace I don't
> think the child ns may weaken the parent ns - child ns may not access
> processes of the parent namespace and everything it may ptrace is
> already inside of this ns.

Oh, yes.  If you're saying the symlink protection shouldn't be
per-pidns, I agree it seems an odd fit.

How about a version of this patch leaving symlink protection
out of pidns (maybe in user ns), and just putting ptrace
protection per-pidns?


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.