Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 Jul 1999 13:35:05 +0200 | From | Marc Mutz <> | Subject | Re: QUESTION: 32-bit UIDs and Linux 2.3 |
| |
Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > > Chris Wing writes: > > > How much backwards compatibility do you think there should be: > > > Suggested rules: > > 1. Always allow 32-bit calls. > > 2. Always have 16-bit calls in the kernel. (see below) > > 3. Let unprivileged processes get garbage UID values. The software > isn't very dangerous, and it might work fine. > > 4. If any large UID is ever set for any process, privileged processes > must not be allowed to make any 16-bit calls. Log the problem, > stop the process, and return failure if the process continues. > > 5. Have a run-time config option to kill any privileged process that > tries to use a 16-bit call. > > 6. Have a run-time config option to allow 16-bit calls from privileged > processes that are not setuid. > Hmm, altough I'm fully aware of these points being restricted to UID issues, it is very reminiscent of the win16->win32 transition and all its pain (& overhead). Esp. items 4-6 seem rather ugly to me. Was this meant to be a temporary workaround - maybe introduced in 2.3/2.4 and then 2.6/3.0 support only 32bit-UID - or do such things become legacy ballast until a 'Linux NT' is written from scratch to remove all of this?
Marc
-- Marc Mutz <Marc@Mutz.com> http://marc.mutz.com/ University of Bielefeld, Dep. of Mathematics / Dep. of Physics
PGP-keyID's: 0xd46ce9ab (RSA), 0x7ae55b9e (DSS/DH)
- 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/
| |