[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:12:55 -0500
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com,
serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org,
jmorris@...ei.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 01/15] Add PR_{GET,SET}_NO_NEW_PRIVS to prevent execve
from granting privs
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:01:46 -0500
> Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>>
>> With this set, a lot of dangerous operations (chroot, unshare, etc)
>> become a lot less dangerous because there is no possibility of
>> subverting privileged binaries.
>>
>> This patch completely breaks apparmor. Someone who understands (and
>> uses) apparmor should fix it or at least give me a hint.
>
> So [patch 2/15] fixes all this up?
>
> I guess we should join the two patches into one, to avoid a silly
> breakage window. That means that John loses a brownie point, but we
> can mention him in the changelog, include his signed-off-by:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>
> Several of these patches are missing your signed-off-by:. They should
> all have your SOB, because you sent them.
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches explains this.
Oops - I'll add them!
> I'm trying to find a way to merge all this code without reviewing it ;)
> Alas, this is against my rules. Given the length of time for which
> this patchset has been floating around, I'm a little surprised by the
> lack of acked-by's and reviewed-by's. Have you been gathering them all
> up? Are the networking guys all happy about this patchset?
eric.dumazet@...il.com acked the networking ones, and I have a
smattering of others for the other patches. Given the review and
feedback, I don't have a huge number of acked/reviewed-bys. I tried
not to lose any after the first couple of revs, but I know I did some
things wrong early on.
I can prod some others who've contributed to add their tags, unless
there is a good reason for them not too. I suspect it was just
because of partial/drive-by reviewing, but I don't know.
thanks!
will
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.
