Messages in this thread | | | From | Bernd Eckenfels <> | Subject | Re: secure computing for 2.6.7 | Date | Sun, 01 Aug 2004 19:24:12 +0200 |
| |
In article <20040801155128.GG6295@dualathlon.random> you wrote: >> where this has applied fix 3501 in the 2.6 branch and 123 according to >> vendor MM, so you do not need to understand vendors XXX schema. However I am > > if all vendors uses different numbers (i.e. vendor MM.123) then I can as > well build the ugly database in function of the `uname -r` > vendorization, building a database of uname -r or a database of > MM/linux-26/whatever isn't going to be any different.
This is not about different vendors certifying the same level. Mainstream software will always require a general fix-level, however internal software may require some other hardening/configuration. Distributions and even end users could use that string to certify "this build is compliant to requirement level 123"
But I agree, it might be overkill for the utsname, however I feel leaving that out of a secure level syscall may be underkill .)
Greetings Bernd -- eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/ Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |