From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to /proc/interrupts
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:27:50 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111107232750.GA4854@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111107232132.2c6880a5@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:21:32PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > It's better than nothing, but it really isn't wonderful - because it's
> > really not just about audio. And revoke doesn't work universally.
>
> BSD invented revoke but never implemented it universally. It turns out
> that this isn't a big problem. Right now we basically only have revoke
> for tty devices but we don't need it for that much more. Revoke on disk
> files and the like has simply never happened because its not a matter of
> revoke being universal so much as universal revoke being universally
> pointless.
I looked into implementing revoke() a while ago, and looked at how BSD
did it. They really only implemented it for a very narrow range of
devices (tty only I think), which is not what we really want.
I thought people wanted it for all char and block devices, if this isn't
so, then it might be easier to implement than I thought.
So, what do we really need revoke() for these days?
But that's getting away from the original topic here, sorry...
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-07 23:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-07 17:45 [PATCH] proc: restrict access to /proc/interrupts Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-11-07 18:06 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-11-07 19:01 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-11-07 19:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-11-07 19:29 ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-11-07 19:48 ` Eric Paris
2011-11-07 19:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-11-07 20:11 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-11-07 20:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-11-07 21:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-11-07 21:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-11-07 23:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-11-07 23:21 ` Alan Cox
2011-11-07 23:27 ` Greg KH [this message]
2011-11-07 23:40 ` Theodore Tso
2011-11-07 23:45 ` Alan Cox
2011-11-07 23:45 ` Greg KH
2011-11-08 20:07 ` Ted Ts'o
2011-11-09 16:14 ` Greg KH
2011-11-08 9:11 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-11-08 13:23 ` Alan Cox
2011-11-08 17:41 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-11-08 17:06 ` John Stoffel
2011-11-07 19:54 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-11-07 20:10 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-11-07 20:19 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111107232750.GA4854@kroah.com \
--to=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=segoon@openwall.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox