>
> 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.
>
ahh, but you're fixing the end product (the kernel), so according to your
comparison, you should fix the disk drive and the power it gives.
-Cygnus
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
Anthony J. Biacco Network Administrator/Engineer
thelittleprince@asteroid-b612.org Intergrafix Internet Services
"Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today"
http://www.asteroid-b612.org http://www.intergrafix.net
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
> Andre, do you have any idea how much space this will take up in the
> kernel? I have no idea how advanced the heuristics will have to be...
>
> > What it does not do is provide protection against malicious destruction of
> > a disk. To destroy the disk you need root before the patch and root after
> > the patch and that is it. The recent proliferation of rather complex
> > exploits of holes in programs shows that even problems that are hard to
> > exploit will be exploited. Using direct io to destroy the
> > bios/disk/whatnot with direct io is not beyond their reach I suspect.
>
> Yes, I totally agree
>
> Later,
> Ryan
>
>
>
>
> -
> 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/
>
-
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 - 21:00:16 EST