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    [W:0.021 / U:0.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site