[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 32-bit pid_t / security
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 11:47:41AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:

> > Thus, "Hoping for security" is meaningless.
> > But "Hoping for more security by having more PID's" is quite
> > reasonable. If I am local user on your system then I can break in
> > using a wraparound. If that takes 2147483647 processes I have to
> > wait longer than when that takes 32000 processes.
> Please, I'm with you on this one, not against you. I want pid_t to be
> increased. I'd rather see it sooner than later.


> What I meant was simply that _purely_ making the move out of security
> reasons might not be reasonable.

So it is only here we disagree.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.118 / U:3.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site