Re: Policy question

From: Chris Wright (chrisat_private)
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 11:50:01 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: 2001-05-27 patch against 2.4.5"

    * Titus D. Winters (titusat_private) wrote:
    > So Chris Lundberg and I are in the process of porting over a honeypot that
    > I wrote as an LKM a while back.  Since we are hiding files and processes,
    > we are finding that returning EPERM in places (like ptrace, open, and
    > several others) is less useful than returning something like ESRCH or
    > ENOENT.  Aside from the 1 assignment per query performance hit, why are we
    > not doing something like
    This sounds good, some other people have asked for this.  Patches are
    gratefully accepted.  You may want to either hold off for a couple hours
    until the latest BitKeeper is available, or make your patch relative to the
    patch that Greg posted on the 27th (which merges with 2.4.5).
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 30 2001 - 11:53:26 PDT