Re: [security]: kernel ioctl()'s [3]

Chris Evans (chris@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk)
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 00:14:43 +0100 (GMT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Chris Evans: "Re: [security]: kernel ioctl()'s [3]"
Previous message: Riley Williams: "Re: LINUX"
In reply to: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: Standard for module delivery"

On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

> These seems reasonable to me. It doesn't change the behaviour of
> non-capability systems, since root will have both CAP_IMMUTABLE and

OK I will forward to Linus. I agree the 2.2.x case doesn't warrant fixing.

Chris

-
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/

Next message: Chris Evans: "Re: [security]: kernel ioctl()'s [3]"
Previous message: Riley Williams: "Re: LINUX"
In reply to: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: Standard for module delivery"