Messages in this thread | | | From | Diego Basch <> | Subject | Re: Proposal: restrict link(2) | Date | Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:13:39 -0300 (ARST) |
| |
> If you think it's that easy and necessary, then do it yourself. You've > got the kernel source, after all. I myself happen to think there's no > good reason to change the behavior of link() in a way that makes it > incompatible with other UNIX systems, or to make any such change part of > a distribution Linux kernel. >
Well, I've been reading this discussion and would like to state my (very humble) opinion: I think that the suggested patch should exist. I'm not sure about having it in the mainstream kernel. I'm not kernel-knowledgeable enough to know if there are already any options that deliberatedly break compatibility with other UN*X, but it doesn't sound like the right thing.
Of course, anyone should feel free to apply whatever patches he/she wants. But as Linux becomes more and more popular, the .config options grow and grow, maybe making the compiling process a little confusing. I think the kernel documentation might include some weird patches, with BIG "do it at your risk" warnings. I believe this is particularly important when addressing an issue as sensitive as security. Compatibility/security tradeoff? I wouldn't use the patch, but it wouldn't hurt to know that it exists and where to find it just in case.
But I wouldn't like going through lots of options for perhaps two users among millions:
Parallel port Space Shuttle support (CONFIG_PARALLEL_SHUTTLE) [N/y/m/?]
Just my $0.00002, Diego. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Diego M. Basch dmb@hsnce.gov.ar PGP Key: http://hi.fi.uba.ar/~diego/pgpkey
| |