Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 22:46:46 -0600 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com> To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> Cc: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@...gle.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>, Boris Lukashev <blukashev@...pervictus.com>, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel-hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH resend 2/2] userns: control capabilities of some user namespaces Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com): > single sandbox. I am not at all certain that the capabilities is the > proper place to limit code reachability. Right, I keep having this gut feeling that there is another way we should be doing that. Maybe based on ksplice or perf, or maybe more based on subsystems. And I hope someone pursues that. But I can't put my finger on it, and meanwhile the capability checks obviously *are* in fact gates... -serge
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.