Re: [RFC] capabilities: Ambient capabilities
From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Sat Mar 14 2015 - 18:55:51 EST
It occurs to me that my previous reply was unnecessarily long and
missed the point. Trying again:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andrew G. Morgan <morgan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Andrew G. Morgan <morgan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> My Nack remains that you are eliminating the explicit enforcement of
>>> selective inheritance. A lockable secure bit protecting access to your
>>> prctl() function would address this concern.
>> Would a sysctl or securebit that *optionally* allows pA to be disabled
>> satisfy you?
It would be kind of nice to remove your nack. I think that the above
is the relevant question. Could you answer it?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/