lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] New system call, unshare
Quoting Florian Weimer (fw@deneb.enyo.de):
> * Janak Desai:
>
> > With unshare, namespace setup can be done using PAM session
> > management functions without patching individual commands.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to use security-critical code well

Note that this patch is not removing the CAP_SYS_ADMIN requirement,
just allowing the operation to happen outside of clone(). Unlike
domain transitions in selinux, which should be tied to exec() so
as to tie them to known code, I don't see what clone() would provide
in terms of safety which we are losing.

> without its original specification. Clearly the current situation
> sucks, but this is mainly a lack of PAM functionality, IMHO.

I'm not sure this is to do with PAM functionality, rather than
just its design. Is there a way of "fixing" pam so that we don't
need unshare()?

thanks,
-serge
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-10 16:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site