On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 bodnar42@bodnar42.dhs.org wrote:
> To carry on the networking metaphor, imagine writing an app that tries to
> write() on a unconnected socket, and when you ran it as root it
> would cause your kernel to panick. Fixing this would not be considered an
> "added layer of protection against broken apps", it would be considered a
> bug fix. This is only different in that the interface is used less often,
> and misuse can cause more damage.
The difference being that root _is_ allowed to crash the kernel. No, this
is more a question of providing a "cooked" interface or not. I generally
believe in cooked itnerfaces when they can abstract away differences in
lower levels. However, given the possible damage caused by an error I can
certainly understand if Linus chooses to include it.
The discussion has not been so much whether this patch is a good idea as
it has been about the claim that it is a security patch protecting from a
malicious root.
Peter
-- Peter Svensson ! Pgp key available by finger, fingerprint: <petersv@psv.nu> ! 8A E9 20 98 C1 FF 43 E3 07 FD B9 0A 80 72 70 AF <petersv@df.lth.se> ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remember, Luke, your source will be with you... always...- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 21:00:15 EST