From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757546AbZBENlL (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:41:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752329AbZBENkz (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:40:55 -0500 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:38652 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752051AbZBENkz (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:40:55 -0500 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20090107190652.GA20311@us.ibm.com> References: <20090107190652.GA20311@us.ibm.com> <200901060514.n065E462074929@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20090106155829.GA9773@us.ibm.com> <49639039.4060708@cs.columbia.edu> <1231267532.9746.116.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200901070634.n076YCxF061022@www262.sakura.ne.jp> To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Tetsuo Handa , sds@tycho.nsa.gov, spotter@cs.columbia.edu, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add in_execve flag into task_struct. Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:40:35 +0000 Message-ID: <2690.1233841235@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > It's ugly, you can't get me to say it isn't ugly :), and it sets a scary > bad precedent. But if David insists (in a reply to this msg) that this > flag really is tops, then just ignore me. Anyway my point wasn't to > block the patch but to raise discussion (so someone else could decide to > block it :) on both the flag and security implications of these > semantics. I think it's probably the best way to support Tomoyo's security model without reworking a chunk of execve(). David