lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] capabilities: Ambient capabilities
It occurs to me that my previous reply was unnecessarily long and
missed the point. Trying again:

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andrew G. Morgan <morgan@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Andrew G. Morgan <morgan@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> My Nack remains that you are eliminating the explicit enforcement of
>>> selective inheritance. A lockable secure bit protecting access to your
>>> prctl() function would address this concern.
>>
>> Would a sysctl or securebit that *optionally* allows pA to be disabled
>> satisfy you?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It would be kind of nice to remove your nack. I think that the above
is the relevant question. Could you answer it?

--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-15 00:01    [W:0.086 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site