From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: fanotify as syscalls Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:27:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20090922162707.GA11608@shareable.org> References: <20090912094110.GB24709@ioremap.net> <20090921231227.GJ14700@shareable.org> <200909221731.34717.agruen@suse.de> <1253635918.2747.5.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher , Davide Libenzi , Linus Torvalds , Evgeniy Polyakov , David Miller , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, alan@linux.intel.com, hch@infradead.org To: Eric Paris Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1253635918.2747.5.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Eric Paris wrote: > That's not the fatal flaw. The fatal flaw is that I am not going to > write 90% of a rootkit and make it easy to use. I hate to point out the obvious, but fanotify's ability to intercept every file access and rewrite the file before the access proceeds is also 90% of a rootkit... But fortunately both fanotify and syscall rewriting require root in the first place. I think that makes the rootkit argument moot. As long as fanotify doesn't have a non-root flavour... which really would be handy for rootkits :-) > Easy != Good. I agree. -- Jamie