Messages in this thread | | | From | David Howells <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] Add the ability to lock down access to the running kernel image | Date | Fri, 26 May 2017 13:43:12 +0100 |
| |
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> You called out five distinct features in 0/5, so how about > a bit for each of those?
Actually, there are more than five in that list - there are three in the first item - and I'm not sure the remaining categories are quite as well defined as I made it seem.
Also, that sort of categorisation might not be what we actually need: it might end up coming down to a no-write vs no-read-or-write split instead.
> Actually, I don't care which way you go. The current code works > for me. I am just concerned that the granularity fiends might come > around later.
In that case, I'll leave it as is for the moment. It doesn't introduce so many calls that they're impossible to change.
David
| |