Re: [PATCH] Workqueue freezer support.

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@cyclades.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1274 bytes --]

Hi.

On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 11:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:46 am, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
> >
> > On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > > On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
> > > > end result - the macros looked clearer to me - but here goes. If it
> > > > looks okay, I'll seek sign offs from each of the affected driver
> > > > maintainers and from Ingo. Anyone else?
> > >
> > > What are your feelings about this: http://lwn.net/Articles/145417/ ?
> >
> > I'm sure it could work, but I do worry a little about the possibilities
> > for exploits. It seems to me that if someone can get root, they an
> > insmod a module that could schedule any kind of work via any process.
> > Tracing that sort of security hole could be intractable. Christoph, is
> > that something you've considered/have thoughts on? Perhaps I'm just
> > being paranoid :>
> 
> If someone gets root access it means you're already exploited.

Yeah, true. Ok. Lame thought :>

Nigel

> Cheers,
> Con
-- 
Evolution.
Enumerate the requirements.
Consider the interdependencies.
Calculate the probabilities.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]