Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:07:01 +1100 (EST) | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits |
| |
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Really? I'd feel a lot more comfortable if yesterday's version 1 had led > to a stream of comments from suitably-knowledgeable kernel developers which > indicated that those developers had scrutinised this code from every > conceivable angle and had declared themselves 100% happy with it.
FWIW, I've reviewed the patch in detail a couple of times, and don't see any issues with it that haven't already been raised by Serge.
You can add my reviewed-by.
I think it does need more eyes, and some time baking in -mm.
File capabilities are at least marked experimental, although it's not clear what the criteria would be to unmark them.
- James -- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
| |