From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:58:15 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Message-ID: <20110815005815.GX5782@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20110813062246.GC3851@albatros> <36fcaf94-2e99-47cb-a835-aefb79856429@email.android.com> <632d03b0-6725-431e-b100-13f5046b03e9@email.android.com> <20110814092028.GB14293@openwall.com> <01ba0cce-d28e-473e-be3a-7d3c8f185681@email.android.com> <20110814152729.GU5782@one.firstfloor.org> <4E47EB99.1020909@zytor.com> <20110815001841.GW5782@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC] x86: restrict pid namespaces to 32 or 64 bit syscalls To: Will Drewry Cc: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Solar Designer , Vasiliy Kulikov , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , James Morris , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Perhaps :) I wish it had landed after 9 revisions and at least two > variant patches. Despite that, I think it's great to pull in > additional requirements, like COMPAT locking, to make sure that the > solution is really a good one. It may also be that my entire original > approach was wrong and should be revisited too. Everyone's comments > here and the proposed patch itself certainly have me thinking. I didn't see anything wrong with it. Also the first try doesn't need to be perfect anyways, it can be always changed later. How about you just repost it? -Andi