Re: [PATCH 2/3] Security: Implement disablenetwork semantics. (v4)

[Michael Stone]

Paraphrasing Kyle:

> Suppose there exist PAM modules which lazily fork background processes. Now
> assume that one of those PAM modules is hooked from /etc/pam.d/su, that the
> module fails closed when the network is unavailable, and that Mallory wins
> the race to start the daemon. Boom.

I'm not disagreeing that there are configurations of programs, written for
kernels without disablenetwork, which cease to be correct on kernels that
provide it. However, all this says to me is that people who need to use those
configurations probably shouldn't use disablenetwork. (Or that we haven't found
exactly the right semantics for disablenetwork yet.)

Let's keep working on it.

Michael
--
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/