[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: syscall: sys_promote
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 16:16 +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> >(almost) every tool may become a security problem.
> >If you fear a bug in sudo, then write a minimal setuid wrapper for
> >yourself which checks for the user it started and exec's a binary (with
> >the full path name specified).
> >And even then - dependent on other details of the setup - you have the
> >gap of security problems (or misuse) because of holes in the security.
> But if we make sure a tool doesn't introduce any new secrutiy problem,
> that's good enough.

ACK. That's basically the idea behind "write 15 lines of C code and be
absolutely sure that there is no problem in there".

> >What does the user do if the process terminates (for whatever reason)
> >and must be restarted by the user (manually or auutomatically)?
> If we worry that, we'd make a persistent OS instead.
> >Basically I can see no need for "one time in history" actions. A daemon
> >can terminate and must be restarted (it may even be a software bug that
> >causes this and this doesn't change anything that the daemon's admin
> >must restart it *now*). The machine may reboot for whatever reason ....
> The US space shuttle certainly can auto pilot, so it doesn't need a
> control panel.
> And If anything fails, NASA just launch another ship?

I didn't realize that you are working on (one-time) Space Shuttle
I assumed average servers, services and environment ....

Firmix Software GmbH
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-29 10:56    [W:0.029 / U:9.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site