Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:08:50 +1100 (EST) | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Add in_execve flag into task_struct. |
| |
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, David Howells wrote:
> Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > It's ugly, you can't get me to say it isn't ugly :), and it sets a scary > > bad precedent. But if David insists (in a reply to this msg) that this > > flag really is tops, then just ignore me. Anyway my point wasn't to > > block the patch but to raise discussion (so someone else could decide to > > block it :) on both the flag and security implications of these > > semantics. > > I think it's probably the best way to support Tomoyo's security model without > reworking a chunk of execve().
Agreed. It's somewhat less than perfect, but I don't see a better alternative.
- James -- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
| |